RANCHI, India, June 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 8:

1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and in view of that both the appeals are heard together with consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and respondent No.3 in M.A. No.390 of 2023 and M.A. No.391 of 2023 respectively and Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in both the appeals.

3. M.A. No.390 of 2023 has been filed challenging the award dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cumP.O. M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claims Case No.367 of 2016.

4. M.A. No.391 of 2023 has been filed challenging the award dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cumP.O. M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claims Case No.366 of 2016.

5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in giving the finding, so far rash and negligent driving on behalf of the truck is concerned. He submits that the case has been instituted and the final form has been submitted in which it has been disclosed that the motorcyclists have dashed the truck which was in parking condition and in view of that the finding of the learned Tribunal is not correct. He submits that there are contradictory deposition of the claimants/witnesses with regard to the employment of the deceased as one has said that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- by way of selling chat on the cart and another has said that he was doing the work of mason. He submits in view of that the quantum is also not correctly taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal.

6. He further submits that so far second case is concerned in that case the facts are similar and the only difference is that the deceased of that case was the pillion rider of the said motorcycle and in view of that the award may kindly be set aside. He submits that the right to recovery is already there in favour of the appellant. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Premlata Shukla and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476. He also relied in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. versus Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. arising out of SLP(C) No.10351/2019 and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the driver was found negligent and no further evidence is required.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants draws the attention of the Court and submits that the PW - 2 is the eye witness and he has proved the accident and in view of that the rash and negligent driving has been proved on behalf of the truck. He further submits that even the proper care has not been taken in parking of the said truck and that has been considered by the learned Tribunal.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpICuS%2BucgKfHb8ycBpCXpRyWe3tUzVLIfHdfh%2BXy1XDr&caseno=MA/390/2023&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010398242023&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.