RANCHI, India, Dec. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 19:

1. Both these appeals arise of the judgment and award of compensation passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-MACT, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 51/2015, whereby and whereunder, Section 166 of the M.V. Act. a compensation of Rs.28,43,265/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants. The Insurance-Company is in appeal against the liability being fixed on it and as well as the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas the claimants have preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. As per the case of the claimants, on 12.01.2015 at about 2 p.m. deceasedSavitri Devi, who was going on a motorcycle bearing registration no. JH11D-5849, met with an accident caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration no.NL-01G-6414. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on spot regarding which a case was registered being Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 10/2015 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC against the driver of the offending truck.

3. The award of compensation in the instant case is under challenge on the ground that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

4. It is argued on behalf of the Insurance-Company that it is a case of contributory negligence, as the deceased was travelling on the motorcycle with three persons. It is further argued that the owner and driver had appeared before the learned Tribunal, but the driving licence has not brought on record which will amount to breach of fundamental terms and conditions of the insurance policy in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 208.

5. It is further contended that in the FIR there is specific averment that when the accident took place, three persons were riding on the motorcycle and this made out a case of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. This has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2009 (2) JCR 287, Manish Narayan Vs. Seem Bouri & Ors., wherein it has been held that there was no evidence that, the driver, who was driving the vehicle, had valid driving licence and that too with two pillion riders which was not permissible in law and therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence. Ratio of this case has been followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 377 of 2019 at para 14.

6. On the quantum part, it is argued that there is no dispute whatsoever that the deceased was a government servant and was getting Rs. 13,000/- per month as salary. However, the learned Tribunal by adding the pension, loss of monthly income has assessed to be Rs. 17,175/-.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that there is error in computation of the monthly income of the deceased, as she was drawing Rs. 16,922/- at the time of accident. The submission as made cannot be accepted for the reason that Exhibit-4 has been proved on behalf of the claimants where the monthly income has been stated to be Rs. 13,675/-. Therefore, any claim of income beyond this is not tenable.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoLMUPNpJjdaOaswldD8xJz0i1s3Vx0Pb1P4jWRCqlepm&caseno=MA/138/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010305402021&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.