RANCHI, India, Aug. 2 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 2:
1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ranjan Kr. Ravidas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors and they are the son of respondent No.1, as such respondent Nos.2 and 3 are being represented by respondent No.1.
2. This appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the Judgment/Award dated 29.07.2016 passed by learned District Judge-Icum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case No.26 of 2014.
3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claim application was filed on behalf of the claimants stating that Late Gulsan Bibi died in motor vehicle accident bearing No.WB-65A/2029 for which a case has been lodged in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.04/14 dated 05.01.2014 under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC against the driver of alleged vehicle and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the driver namely Atarul Sk @ Aata Sk. The claimants have further claimed that deceased was the wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the aforesaid vehicle accident occurred in aforementioned road which resulted in death of deceased and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet and deceased died leaving behind the claimants and the deceased was only earning member of her family. The prayer was made for compensation and it was further stated that the deceased was a skilled lady and she was doing the work of tailor and she used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by way of tailoring the dresses for men and women. He submits that in this background the compensation case was filed and the learned Tribunal by the impugned award has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.13,61,000/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application dated 17.02.2015 till it's realization. He submits that the main ground in filing of the present appeal is that the driver of the vehicle in question was authorized to drive only light motor vehicle wherein he was the driver and driving the heavy goods vehicle and in view of that the finding of the learned Court to the effect that he was authorized to drive the double-decker vehicle is not tenable. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bijay Kumar Sinha and Malti Devi reported in 2007 4 JCR 129 (Jhar) and on the same line he further relied in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Dhanalakshmi reported in 1997 0 Supreme (Kar) 259 and he further relied in the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Prakash versus Hanumanthraya reported in 1999 0 Supreme (Kar) 29.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCODT5Dw7YIYwJmOt5x0nKy3soRcggZir4vF1XGoke26ou&caseno=MA/151/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010352342017&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
