Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Keshri vs Saraswati Devi on 7 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:10850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 229 of 2012
Sanjeev Kumar Keshri, S/o Sri Dwarika Prasad Keshri, R/o Thana
Road, Sisai, P.O. & P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Suresh Sahu
2.Dinesh Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Suresh Sahu
3.Anita Kumari, D/o Late Suresh Sahu
4.Lalita Kumari, D/o Late Suresh Sahu
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are permanent resident of Village- Bhadoli Sisai,
P.O. & P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla and Resp. No.3 is presently residing
at Luxmi Nagar, P.O. Hehal & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi-834005.
5.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gumla Branch, Gumla, Palkot Road,
P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla.
. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
………
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Claimant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Ins. Comp. : Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate
......
32/ 07.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The owner of the vehicle/ appellant is in appeal against the impugned
judgment of Award dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned Presiding
Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation
Case No.264 of 2004 by which the liability to pay the compensation
amount to the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been
fixed on the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the three
grounds:-
(i) Firstly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the accident took place within the District of Gumla and the
claimants were also the residents of District- Gumla which will
be evident from the deposition of the wife of the deceased
(C.W.1) who has deposed that since before the accident, she
had been living in Sisai which falls under the District of Gumla.
Further, in Para-15, she has deposed that she had never
ventured to any other place, than the Village- Bhadauli.
Daughter of the deceased has been examined as C.W.2, who
has also deposed in Para-18 that on the date of deposition i.e.
25.04.2008, she was living at Ranchi for the last two years. It is
contended that her mother and brother(s) were living at Village-
Sisai. The incident took place on 12.10.2004 and, therefore, the
2025:JHHC:10850
learned Tribunal at Ranchi had no jurisdiction in terms of Section
166(2) of the M.V. Act.
(ii) Secondly it is argued that the Tractor bearing Registration
No.JH07A 4413 was not involved in the accident and the same
shall be evident from the judgment delivered in the criminal case
arising out of G.R. No.618 of 2004 (arising out of Sisai P.S. Case
No.103 of 2004 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304 (A) IPC. The incident has been attributed to the deceased
(Suresh Sahu) who is alleged to have taken wife and was
travelling on the said Tractor after he got down from the tractor
and was dashed by some other vehicle;
(iii) Lastly it is argued that the tractor was under the insurance cover
of National Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No.5) and
it was financed by Uco Bank, Sisai, therefore, the premium of
renewal of the instalment was also paid by UCO Bank and the
same was marked as Z for identification, from which it will be
evident that the premium amount was dispatched on 12.10.2004
whereas the accident took place in the evening of the same day.
As there was no laches on the part of the insured and the amount
had already been dispatched and, therefore, in view of Section
64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938, it is the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount if any, to the claimants.
3. In this regard, reliance is placed on 2004 2 ACJ 1209, in the case of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Bhal Nalkantha Khadi
wherein the draft had already been made before the accident, but the
Insurance Company received the proposal along with the premium by
the demand-draft after the said accident. The High Court of Gujarat
held that in such situation, it was the Insurance Company which will be
liable to pay the compensation. The judgment rendered in 2006 0
Supreme (MP) 812 is also to the same effect.
4. I find force in the argument on behalf of the claimants/ respondents
that so far as the criminal case is concerned, there is no finding
recorded by the criminal Court that the tractor, in question, was not
involved in the accident. Further in any case, the judgment of a Court
exercising criminal jurisdiction, is not binding on the Civil Court.
Further, the finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal
on the basis of eye-witness account regarding the involvement of the
2025:JHHC:10850
Tractor, in question and therefore the plea that it was not involved in
the accident is not sustainable.
5. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that
the issue of jurisdiction should have been raised as a preliminary issue
at the inception and at this stage award of compensation cannot be set
aside on this technical plea. [See (2016)3 SCC 43]
6. It is argued by the counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that
under Section 64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the risk of the
vehicle is covered from the date when the premium is paid and unless
and until the premium is received, the risk of any vehicle is not covered.
So far as the explanation to Section 64(v)(b)(2) of the Act, 1938 is
concerned, only two exceptions have been made i.e. when the
premium amount has already been dispatched by the postal money
order or through the cheque and in that circumstances, the risk
coverage starts from the date when the amount has been dispatched
by the post money-order.
7. It is contended that in the present case, there is no evidence
whatsoever that the amount was ever dispatched by any registered
post. The only document which is being relied has not been formerly
proved, but the same has been marked Z for identification. The letter
has been shown to be issued by the Branch Manager of UCO Bank,
Sisai, stating therein, that a demand-draft for a sum of Rs.5569/- was
drawn in favour of the Insurance Company for payment of premium of
the Tractor bearing Registration No. JH 07A- 4413 and its trailor
bearing Registration No.4414 which was financed by the Bank and
hypothecated to it. The reference is made to the RC book which is also
a document brought on record from which it will be evident that the
vehicle was registered on 08.04.2003 and registration would have
been made only after taking the insurance of the vehicle from the said
date, meaning thereby, the insurance had expired way back on
07.04.2004 and, therefore, there was a gap of about six month before
the date of accident, then the premium amount was not paid and only
after the accident took place, an ante-dated document has been used
to avoid liability by the owner and with a view to shift it to the insurance
company.
8. It is difficult to concede the argument advanced on behalf of the
Respondent- Insurance Company that Explanation to Section 64(v)(b)
2025:JHHC:10850
of the Insurance Act will be applicable only if it is dispatched by postal
mode of communication. If the cheque/money order or bank draft has
ben drawn in favour of the Insurance Company and duly dispatched,
the same will be effective from the date of dispatch. There is difference
between the cheque and a draft inasmuch as the cheque is cleared
only on representation before the bank and then the amount is debited
from the account of the drawer of the cheque, but in case of draft, the
amount is beforehand debited from the account and then draft is made.
The vey fact that the draft was drawn on the date of accident i.e.
12.10.2004 before the accident took place goes to show that there was
no fault on the part of the appellant/ owner of the vehicle. Further, the
tractor was hypothecated with the bank and it was for the bank to have
paid the premium for renewal of the insurance policy. The very fact
that the policy of insurance was purchased on 14.10.2004 suggests
that the draft was duly dispatched on 12.10.2004 as per the letter
issued.
9. In this view of the matter, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur &
Ors. (Supreme Court Reports (1997) Supp. 6 SCR), it shall be the
Insurance Company which will be liable to pay the compensation.
The impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal so far as it has
fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle, is set aside.
Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
[ad_1]
Source link