The court affirmed the Tribunal's award, finding no illegality in the assessment of the vehicle's involvement or the deceased's income for compensation purposes.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the claimants and Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. This appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment / award dated 31.05.2022, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 216 of 2017, by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi.

3. With regard to admission of the present appeal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has agitated two grounds. Firstly, the vehicle in question was impersonated and in spite of that the learned tribunal has passed the award, which is against the mandate of law and secondly the income has wrongly been assessed by the learned tribunal. On these grounds, the insurance company has challenged the award of the learned tribunal.

4. By way of elaborating the argument, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that the vehicle in question itself was not involved in the accident and the owner of the vehicle has denied the accident and the DO with regard to the lifting of the coal was also not taken into consideration and the driver has also stated that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously rejected these grounds and also not considered the documents in its right perspective. He further submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been calculated ignoring the income tax return. He submits that on the above grounds, the award is fit to be set aside.

5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5-claimants submits that the learned tribunal has considered all aspect of the matter with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in question and the case has proceeded ex-parte against the owner. He submits that the driver has surrendered in a criminal case and took bail without raising any protest, post-mortem was also there and investigation was completed and considering all these aspects, the contention of the insurance company is negated. He submits that there is no illegality in the award and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. Versus ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-9 to 11, 14 and 15, it has been held as follows:-

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the order [ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Janabai, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21282] of the High Court is unsustainable. Appellant 1 and her husband had received injuries in an accident which took place on 1-6-2007. She lost her husband on 25-6-2007. The primary concern of Appellant 1 or other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the deceased in his critical condition. The health and well- being of her husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The High Court has proceeded primarily on the basis of information to the police regarding non- disclosure of the name of the driver of the car in the FIR. Appellant 1 has filed her examination-in-chief on 1-8-2011 disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle. The owner and the Insurance Company had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in support of their stand that the vehicle number given by her was not involved in the accident. In cross-examination, she deposed that she was brought to the hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their vehicle. She deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalised, therefore, she filed the complaint late.

10. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR a