IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No.223 of 2012

------

Ugni Bibi

....

....

….

Appellant

Versus

1. Gobind Ram Hathampuria

2. Shital Mahto

3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

4. Fatema Bibi

5. Salema Bibi

6. Halima Bibi

7. Hafija Bibi

8. Bulu Khatoon

9. Katki @ Fatki Khatoon

10. Hajrat Mian

....

....

....

Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

CAV ON : 22.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON 13 .04.2022

For the Appellant

: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

1.

Claimant has preferred the appeal against the judgment of dismissal of

claim application filed under section 92(A) of the MV Act (old) and under

Section 142(2) of the M.V. Act of 1988 in Title Claim Suit No.37/92.

2.

Claimant the widow of the deceased filed the claim case with regard to

the death of Jalal Mian in a motor vehicle accident involving No. B.E.Y-5051

at village Takipur under Dumka district. It is averred the deceased was 55

years of age and had a monthly income of Rs 2000/- from cattle trade at the

time of the accident. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle

were impleaded as opposite parties.

3.

Both the owner and insurer of the vehicle appeared and contested the

claim inter alia on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It was

pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that it was under the insurance cover of

O.P. No.3 Oriental Insurance Company at the relevant time of accident.

4.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties following issues were

framed:

i.

Is the suit maintainable as frame?

ii.

Has applicant got cause of action for the suit?

2

iii.

Is the suit barred by law of limitation, principle of waiver, estoppel and

acquiescence as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit?

iv.

Have all legal heirs not joined as parties as to the suit?

v.

Had Jalal Mian S/o Kolha Mian of Village Kolkata, P.S. Raneshwar,

Distt. Dumka died in an accident or use of motor vehicle Truck No.

B.E.Y. 5051.

vi.

Is O.P. No.1-Gobind Ram Hetampuria owner of truck no.B.E.Y.5051

which being driven by O.P. No.2 Sital Mahto, who was authorized to

drive the vehicle?

vii.

Is O.P. No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Dumka authorized

insurer of the vehicle and accordingly entitled to disclose the liability

of the owner of Truck No.B.E.Y.5051?

viii.

Is petitioner entitled to get compensation under M.V. Act. It yes, what

should be the adequate amount of compensation will be joint for end of

justice?

ix.

Is the petitioner is entitle to any other relief or relief?

5.

On Issue No. V the Tribunal recorded a finding that Jalal Mian died in

the motor vehicle accident arising out of use of the Truck bearing registration

no. BEY 5051. It was further held that since the licence of the driver of the

truck was not brought on record by either of the side, therefore it was not

proved that the driver was having a valid driving licence. It was also held that

the vehicle was under the insurance cover O.P. No.3. Learned Tribunal

computed a compensation of Rs.1,85,500 with admissible compensation of

Rs.1,60,500 after deducting Rs.25,000 which was the ad-interim payment to

the claimant.

6.

The claim application was however dismissed on the ground that as per

heirship certificate Ext 2 the other six daughters and one son of the deceased

were not impleaded in the suit. It held that all the heirs were entitled to

compensation in equal proportion except that the claimant was also entitled to

consortium for the death of her husband.

7.

The Judgment of the learned Court below reflects a sad state of affair

where the Tribunal completely misdirected itself and lost sight of the fact that

adjudication in a claim tribunal is in the nature of inquiry and not a trial

where the principles of C.P.C. are not strictly a