RANCHI, India, Nov. 2 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:
1. Heard Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Ms. Puja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013.
2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 has been preferred challenging the part of the award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned District Judgecum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008, whereby, the learned Tribunal held the deceased as contributory negligent to the accident and on account of contributory negligence, deducted 50% from the total calculated compensation amount and awarded a meagre sum of Rs.8,57,876/- with interest rate @ 9% per annum. Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle for settingaside the said award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.
3. Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013, which has been preferred by the claimants submits that the claimants have filed T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008 alleging therein that the deceased was an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and on 12.11.2007 at 12.15 p.m., he was going to his duty by a motorcycle and one Ram Krishna Das was also along with him. In the meantime, the offending vehicle- dumper bearing registration No.DT-2635 FSNL being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Abdul Aziz Ansari from the rear side, as a result of which, he received fatal injury and died on spot. Ram Krishna Das also received grievous injuries and as a result of the accident, his one leg and one hand had to be amputated. It was further alleged that the deceased was 57 years of age and having a monthly income of Rs.23,691.16/- per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% from the total calculated compensation amount on the ground of contributory negligence. He then submits that the chargesheet was submitted only against the driver of the dumper in question and chargesheet has not been submitted against the deceased and in view of that, it is proved that there is no contributory negligence so far as the deceased is concerned. In view of that, he submits that the entire awarded amount may kindly be directed to be paid to the claimants/appellants and the award may kindly be modified to that effect. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has not given any direction for payment of amount towards future prospect and in conventional head, only Rs.10,000/- has been directed to be paid in place of Rs.70,000/- in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. On these grounds, he submits that the award of the learned Tribunal may kindly be modified.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner of the dumper in Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 is not disputing the accident. He further submits that the deceased was negligent and in view of that, 50% liability fastened upon the owner of the dumper is not in accordance with law. He then submits that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any compensation. He next submits that a sum of Rs.2,42,100/- has been deposited by the employer of the deceased under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which was received by the claimants.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=T2Oj5Y97nX2tmju2FyqIU39jlVPKfdXODQRFc%2Fg%2BPdxdkIXrb5fRKCb4bjgjNF6L&caseno=MA/86/2013&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010172372013&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
