15/ 22.01.2025

Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Alok Lal, learned conunsel appearing for the insurance company (respondent No. 2) and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 1).

2. This appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 30.11.2023, passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj, in M.A.C.C. Case No. 21 of 2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the compensation claim of the appellants.

3. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are the legal heirs and successors of the deceased namely Asmuddin Ansari. He submits that the compensation claim application has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation of Rs. 13,20,000/- plus Rs. 60,000/- for mental shock and agony and for expenses in cremation and shradh in social custom and any other amount which is payable under the law. He further submits that on 11.02.2019 at about 23.40 on pitch road at Taranakho, P.S.-Dhanwar, District-Giridih, the driver has lost his control over the alleged offending vehicle and dashed the vehicle in a Neem tree due to which, driver of the vehicle got injured and on the way to hospital he was died and the name of the driver is Asmuddin Ansari, who was aged about 55 years and his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- per month by way of driving the vehicle of the owner, who is the respondent No. 1. On the basis of fardbeyan of Samin Ansari, Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2019 has been registered under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that on these background, the compensation case was filed, however, the learned court has been pleased to reject the same on erroneous ground. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has only discussed that the claim is not maintainable. Learned counsel has relied in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company & Anr., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550.

4. Relying on the above judgment and page-20 of the Memo of Appeal, wherein the insurance coverage paper is enclosed, wherein it has been disclosed that the PA is paid for owner-driver, he submits that the appellants are entitled for Rs. 2 lakhs.

5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the compensation case was claimed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and since the negligence was on the part of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the said award. He submits that if such a situation is there, no case of interference by this court is made out and he relied in the case of Nishan Singh & Ors. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0463/2018

as well as in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Vinod, reported in 2016(4) TAC 449 (Ker).

6. Relying on these two judgments, he submits that once the own action of rash and negligence has proved, the learned Tribunal has passed the said award. He submits that the PA coverage is not for the other person.

7. Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-owner of the offending vehicle submits that he had employed the deceased Asmuddin Ansari, as a driver of the truck for driving the truck and the accident took place.

8. It is an admitted position that the accident took place on 11.02.2019, in which, the driver namely Asmuddin Ansari died, he was driving the vehicle of respondent No. 1 and the chargesheet was submitted against the driver, thus the accident and the death are proved.

9. In the order of the learned Tribunal, it has not come how the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased. It is an admitted position that the legal heirs and successors of the deceased have claimed the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle A