IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 202 of 2015

Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

Office at Sachindra Sadan,

S.N. Ganguly Road, Ranchi.

..... … Appellant

Versus

1. Sutopa Haldhar, wife of Arup Haldar @ Bapi Haldar

2. Anjali Haldar (Minor),

daughter of Arup Haldar @ Bapi Haldar

3. Sudip Haldar (Minor),

son of Arup Haldar @ Bapi Haldar

4. Bishnu Priya Haldar,

wife of late Bhubaneshwar Haldar

5. Kashi Nath Oraon, son of Ramkisto Oraon ..... … Respondents

--------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Appellant

:

Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 :

Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate.

For the Resp No. 6

:

Mr. S.K. Barnwal, Advocate

------

14/ 13.02.2023

Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-insurance company.

2.

Respondent No. 1 and 5 has appeared through advocate, but

in spite of repeated calls, nobody has responded on their behalf.

3.

Office note suggests that the notice upon the respondent Nos.

2, 3 and 4 has already been effected, but they have chosen not to appear in

the matter, accordingly, this appeal has been heard in their absence.

4.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance

company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated

22.11.2014, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles

Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 63 of 2012.

5.

On 09.12.2011 at about 7.45 AM, when Arup Haldar was

cleaning the front area of his shop, a turbo truck bearing registration No.

JH-01-U-3294 came from Baruhatu side and dashed the deceased Arup

Haldar resulting in death at the spot. Accordingly, a compensation case

was filed before the learned Tribunal.

5.

The learned tribunal after framing of the issues and upon

hearing of the parties has been pleased to award a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/-

in favour of the claimants after deducting the payment, if made under

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act with interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of admission of the case i.e. 23.03.2012 till the date of

payment which shall be made within one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of the judgment/award, failing which, the insurance company

is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment

-2-

/award. Aggrieved with that, the insurance company has filed the present

second appeal.

6.

Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

insurance company submits that the driver was not having the valid

driving license and in spite of that the compensation case was allowed. He

submits that the calculation part is also misconceived one. On these

grounds, he submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed in favour of

the appellant.

7.

In view of the above submission of Mr. Alok Lal, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, the court has

gone through the judgment/ award of the learned tribunal, from which, it

transpires that the FIR and the chargesheet were marked as Exhibits-1 and

2 and the Xerox copies of post-mortem report of deceased Arup Haldar,

registration book of the vehicle, insurance policy, permit, fitness

certificate and Driving License of the driver of the offending vehicle were

also marked as Exhibits-X to X/5 respectively and all those documents

were admitted by the O.Ps. Thereafter, the learned tribunal has come to

the conclusion that looking into the driving license and considered that

although the insurance company has pleaded that those documents are not

admitted but despite the fact that Xerox copies of such documents were

brought on record, the same have not been denied and there is no contrary

evidence led by the insurance c