Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni Madyan, W/o Late Lakhichand Maraiya - Respondents
M.A. No. 202 of 2017
Decided On : 16-04-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation Calculations - The immediate impact of an accident leading to loss of life supports compensation claims, underscoring the need for insurers to adequately establish policy validity. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21).
Facts of the case:
The claimants sought compensation after the death of Lakhichand Maraiya in an accident caused allegedly by the rash driving of a vehicle, claiming the deceased's income was Rs.9,000/month (Rs.300/day). (Paras 7, 10, 12).
Findings of Court:
The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the multiplier for compensation while affirming the rest of the award. (Paras 21, 22).
Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable given the disputed policy and whether negligence was established. (Paras 8, 10, 19).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere discrepancies in policy numbers do not absolve insurers from liability; the obligation to substantiate claims falls on the insurer. (Paras 18, 20).
Result: Appeal disposed of with modification of the multiplier.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in appeal (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on appeal against the tribunal's award (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. details of the accident and claimants’ loss (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and liability (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. modification of multiplier for compensation (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. disposition of appeal and satisfaction of award (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel for the appellant, Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7, however on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for respondent no.8, who is the owner of the vehicle in question.
2. This appeal is barred by limitation of 159 days and for condonation of delay, I.A. No.650 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ground has been taken in the said I.A. for condonation of delay that for the procedure of the company to move file from one table to another table, such delay has occurred and in view of that, the delay may kindly be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 submits that there is no sufficient explanation in the I.A. and in view of that, the delay may not be condoned.
5. For the reasons assigned in the said I.A., it transpires that there is no sufficient explanation, however, taking lenient view, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed and the delay of 159 days in filing the present appeal is, hereby, condoned.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No.650 of 2020 is disposed of.
7. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case No.01 of 2012, whereby, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs.20,49,000 in favour of the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 7.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the correct policy was not produced before the learned Tribunal and in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum, which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that in view of the wrong policy, liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount. He also submits that the charge-sheet has not been submitted under relevant sections and in view of that, negligence is also not proved and in view of that, the accident itself is in dispute. He then submits that the postmortem was not done and in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum. On these grounds, he submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned award may kindly be set-aside.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 draws attention of the Court to the award and submits that the learned Tribunal has taken care of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant herein and has given a cogent reason of approving on the point of policy. He further submits that the accident has taken place and charge-sheet has also been submitted. According to him, relevant sections are immaterial in the case of death. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned award.
10. From the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, it transpires that the claimants had filed the claim case for grant of compensation on account of the death of her husband and father, namely, Late Lakhichand Maraiya, who died in motor vehicle accident being Tata Magic (Maxi-CAB) having registration no. JH-15D-8316 for which a case has been lodged being Amrapara P.S. Case No. 46/10 dated 26.06.2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 400/10 under Sections 279 , 337, 338 IPC against the driver of alleged vehicle bearing no. JH-15D-8316 and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver namely, Md. Akhtar Ansar. The further case of the claimants-respondent nos.
