[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Manjuara Bibi @ Rubi Bibi @ Manuwara Bibi on 15 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:11360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 06 of 2015
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Hero Honda
Vertical 101106 BMC House NI, Connaught Place, New Delhi-
110001 cum Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sahibganj
Branch, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand,
represented through its Dy. Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, National
Insurance Company Ltd., P.O. Ranchi, P.S., Kotwali, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Manjuara Bibi @ Rubi Bibi @ Manuwara Bibi, W/o Late Amir
Hussain
2. Rupa Khatoon
3. Shilpa Khatoon
4. Chompa Khatoon
5. Rupa Khatoon
6. Ashik Hussain
7. Bulbuli Khatoon
8. Julekha Khatoon
Claimant Nos.2 to 8 are minor children of the deceased and
represented though their mother, claimant No. 1 (Manjuara Bibi),
All are resident of village Manikpur, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur,
District-Pakur.
9. Bishnu Das, S/o Bikel Gupta, R/o village Indranagar, P.O. and P.S.
and District-Dumka, owner of the vehicle No. JH-04E-0430
10. Ajijur Rahman, S/o Rashid SK @ Rahid SK, village Karipahari,
P.O. and P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur cum village Moglabandh,
P.O. and P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur cum village Manikpur, P.O.
and P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur (Jharkhand) owner of
vehicle No.JH-04A-1690 ... .... Respondents
With
M.A. No. 07 of 2015
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Hero Honda
Vertical 101106 BMC House NI, Connaught Place, New Delhi-
110001 cum Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sahibganj
Branch, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand,
represented through its Dy. Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, National
Insurance Company Ltd., P.O. Ranchi, P.S., Kotwali, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Soma Rakshit, W/o Late Bikash Kumar Rakshit, R/o village
Hospital Road, Maikrapara, Durgasthan Road, Dumka cum R/o
village Napitapara, Dumka cum R/o village Banpara, P.O. and P.S.
Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.
2025:JHHC:11360
2. Bishnu Das, S/o Bikel Gupta, R/o village Indranagar, P.O. & P.S.
and District-Dumka, owner of the vehicle No. Jh-04E-0430
3. Ajijur Rahman, S/o Rashid SK @ Rahid SK, village Karipahari,
P.O. and P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur cum village Moglabandh, P.O.
and P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur cum village Manikpur, P.O. and P.S.
Maheshpur, District-Pakur (Jharkhand) owner of JH-04A-1690
4. Amit Kumar Rakshit, S/o Late Bikash Kumar Rakshit, R/o village
Hospital Road, Maikrapara, Durgasthan Road, Dumka cum R/o
village Napitapara, Dumka cum R/o village Banpara, P.O. and P.S.
Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand
... .... Respondents
With
M.A. No. 61 of 2015
Soma Rakshit, W/o Late Bikash Kumar Rakshit, R/o village Hospital
Road, Maikrapara, Durgasthan Road, Dumka cum R/o village
Napitapara, Dumka cum R/o village Banpara, P.O. and P.S. Dumka,
District-Dumka, Jharkhand.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Bishnu Das, S/o Bikel Gupta, R/o village Indranagar, P.O. & P.S.
and District-Dumka, owner of the vehicle No. Jh-04E-0430
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Hero
Honda Vertical 101106BMC House NI, Connaught Place, New
Delhi-110001 Cum Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.
Sahibganj Branch, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Sahibganj, Jharkhand
3. Ajijur Rahman, S/o Rashid SK @ Rahid SK, village Karipahari,
P.O.- Pakur, P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur cum village Moglabandh,
P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur cum village Manikpur, P.O. and
P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur (Jharkhand) owner of JH-04A-1690
4. Amit Kumar Rakshit, S/o Late Bikash Kumar Rakshit, R/o village
Hospital Road, Maikrapara, Durgasthan Road, Dumka cum R/o
village Napitapara, Dumka cum R/o village Banpara, P.O. and P.S.
Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand
... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
—–
For the Appellants : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate (in M.A. 6 & 7/15)
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate (in M.A. 61/15)
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate (in M.A.6/15)
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate (in M.A.7/15)
Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate (in M.A.61/15)
—–
C.A.V. ON 08.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 15 / 04 / 2025
1. M. A. No. 06 of 2015 and M. A. No. 07 of 2015 have been filed
2
2025:JHHC:11360
by the appellant-Insurance Company against the impugned judgment of
award and compensation in MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 and MACT
Case No. 78 of 2013 respectively, whereby and whereunder,
compensation has been awarded under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act for the death of Amir Hussain and Bikash Kumar Rakshit
respectively and the liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company
to pay the said amounts.
M. A. No. 61 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant for
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in
MACT Case No. 78 of 2013.
Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore,
they have been heard together and will be disposed of by common
order.
2. As per the case of the claimants in M. A. No. 06 of 2015 and
M. A. No. 07 of 2015, accident took place on 23.12.2012 at 13:40 hours
when two motorcycles bearing Registration No. JH 04 A-1690
(wrongly typed as JH 04 A -1630 in the impugned judgment) and No.
JH 04 E – 0430 met with head on collusion in which Amir Hussain and
Bikash Kumar Rakshit had died.
3. The claimants in MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 are the legal
representatives of deceased Amir Hussain whereas the claimants in
MACT Case No. 78 of 2013 are the legal representatives of deceased
Bikash Kumar Rakshit. MACT Case No. 78 of 2013 was filed
impleading the owner of the motorcycle namely Ajijur Rahmam and
MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 was filed impleading the owner of the
motorcycle namely Bishnu Das.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan, FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.
2007 of 2012 was lodged against both the drivers under Sections 279,
338 427 and 304A of IPC. After investigation, final form was submitted
against both the drivers under the aforesaid sections.
5. It is argued by Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 06 of 2015 arising out of
3
2025:JHHC:11360
M.A.C.T. Case No. 83 of 2013, whereby a compensation of Rs.
5,32,000/- has been imposed on the appellant-Insurance Company, that
it is a case of head-on collision between two motorcycles bearing
registration No. JH04A-1690 (Bazaz Boxer) being driven by deceased-
Amir Hussain and another motorcycle bearing registration No. JH04E-
0430 driven by deceased-Bikash Kumar Rakshit. F.I.R was lodged
against the driver of both the vehicles and in the police report both the
drivers have been held responsible for causing accident. In this factual
circumstance, it is argued that since the fault was equally on the driver
of both the vehicles, therefore, the claim for compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable.
Fundamental ingredient to bring a claim of compensation under Section
166 in contradistinction to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is
that the accident should have resulted on account of fault of the other
offending vehicle. Here since the deceased was also at fault, therefore,
the claim was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act.
6. It is further argued that contrary to evidence, learned Tribunal in
its finding on Issue No. 4 has held the driver of offending vehicle
bearing Registration No. JH04E-0430 to be responsible for the accident.
With regard to quantum of compensation, it is argued that the
consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded which is impermissible
in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680 and the amount which has already been awarded under
Section 140 of M.V. Act was not deducted by awarding the final
compensation amount. Further Rs. 6,00,000/- has already been
deposited by the Insurance Company in compliance of the order passed
on 17.08.2018.
7. In M.A. No. 07 of 2015 arising out of M.A.C.T. Case No. 78 of
2013, apart from the argument regarding non-maintainability of claim
under Section 166 of M.V. Act, argument on the same line has been
4
2025:JHHC:11360
advanced by Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Insurance Company. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has held
on Issue No. 4 that Bikash Kumar Rakshit died while he was riding
vehicle bearing Registration No. JH04E-0430 and the accident occurred
due to “mechanical default”.
8. It is argued by Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the
claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 8 in M.A. No. 06 of 2015) that so far
the question of maintainability under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is
concerned, it comes under Chapter X of the M.V. Act, and the mandate
of law is that the accident should have taken place by use of motor
vehicle. Section is silent, and there is no provision as such, to cast onus
on the claimants to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven
rashly and negligently at the time of accident. In this view of matter,
there was no error on the part of learned Tribunal to award
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
9. It is difficult to countenance the argument advanced on behalf
of the appellant that negligence is not required to be proved in a claim
case filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. To accept such a
proposition of law, will obliterate the distinction between the cases filed
for no fault liability under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act and that under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The scheme of the M.V. Act postulates two
distinct form of claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents. One that
is on account of the fault on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicles, and the other where such a plea is not taken. In the former
case an action under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is maintainable,
whereas in the later case, claim case under Section 163A of M.V. Act is
maintainable. It has been held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Ashalata Bhowmik, (2018) 9 SCC 801:
“7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on
record. It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-
cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred5
2025:JHHC:11360due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the
deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The
deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased
being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party
within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his
own action of rash and negligent driving. A claimant, in our view,
cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence
and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident
on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can
nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same.”
10. With regard to contributory negligence, there is merit in the
argument on behalf of the claimants, that neither FIR nor charge-sheet
is a substantive piece of evidence and the finding that has been recorded
by learned Tribunal is on the basis of the evidence given on oath and
therefore, it will have an overriding effect. The witnesses have
specifically deposed that the accident resulted due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.
JH04E-0430 and, therefore, liability to pay compensation has been
fixed on the insurer of this vehicle. Specific reference is made to the
deposition of A.W.-2 (Imamul Sk.), who deposed in para 1 that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle
bearing Registration No. JH04E-0430. Therefore, plea of contributory
negligence raised on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company is not
sustainable and is accordingly rejected. Learned Tribunal appears to
have made out a third case without any evidence that accident took
place due to “mechanical default”. Such a finding is perverse and
against the weight of evidence.
11. It is argued by Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel on behalf of
the appellant in M.A. No. 61/2015, which has been filed on behalf of
the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case
No. 78/2013, and Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 to 8 in M.A. No. 06/2015, that no award of
6
2025:JHHC:11360
compensation has been made under the head of future prospect.
12. Main object of adjudication in a claim case is to award just and
fair compensation to the dependents in case of death in motor accident
and to the victim/claimant in permanent disability case. There is no
impediment to enhance compensation by awarding just and fair
compensation, in an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, even
if the claimants may not have moved the appellate court for
enhancement of compensation.
13. In the present case there is merit in the plea for enhancement of
compensation, in the award of compensation in both MACT Case No.
83 of 2013 and MACT Case No. 78 of 2013, as no compensation has
been awarded under the head of “future prospect”. The compensation
awarded under the conventional heads and interest rate is not in line
with the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) case.
14. The final compensation to be paid to the claimants on adding
loss of income under future prospect and with Rs 84000/- under
conventional head will work out as under:
In MACT Case No. 78 of 2013, the learned Tribunal has taken
the annual income of the deceased Rs.1,68,000/- and omitted the future
prospect part in the awarded compensation. Further Rs.1,00,000/- was
awarded under the conventional head which is against the ratio of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
Now taking 50% as future prospect and Rs.84,000/- as
conventional head and 1/3rd under the loss of personal deduction and
by taking the multiplier of 16 the total amount comes to Rs. 27,72,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim
application till its realization.
In MACT Case No. 83 of 2013 the learned Tribunal has taken
the annual income of the deceased Rs. 36,000/- and omitted the future
prospect part in the awarded compensation. Further Rs.1,00,000/- was
awarded under the conventional head which is against the ratio of
Pranay Sethi (supra) case.
7
2025:JHHC:11360
Now taking 40% as future prospect and Rs.84,000/- as
conventional head and 1/4th under the loss of personal deduction and
by taking the multiplier of 15 (as learned Tribunal has taken the age of
the deceased to be of 36 years), the total amount comes to Rs.
6,51,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
claim application till its realization.
Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid
compensation amounts with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application till its realization to both the claimants within
one month from the date of this order.
In the result, M.A. No. 06/2015 is dismissed with
modification in award and M.A. No. 07/2015 stands dismissed.
M.A. No. 61/2015 is allowed with enhancement of compensation as
at above.
Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal by the
Insurance Company is remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the
claimants and shall be adjusted against the final compensation amounts.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 15th April, 2025
NAFR/AKT/Satendra8
[ad_2]
Source link