Jharkhand High Court: In an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (‘Reliance’) against compensation of Rs. 20.49 Lakhs awarded to family of a deceased carpenter by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that a wrong policy number by the claimants could not rule out the liability of the insurance company.
Background
In 2010, when the deceased, husband and father of the claimants, was proceeding towards the market for purchasing household goods, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. It was contended that the deceased was a carpenter who used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month and the sole earning member of his family.
Accordingly, a case was filed against the accused under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20.49 Lakhs in favour of the claimants.
Aggrieved, Reliance filed the present appeal contending that the correct policy was not produced before the Tribunal, and in spite of that, the compensation was awarded. Thus, liability could not be fastened upon Reliance, and the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the amount.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court held that merely the claimants providing a wrong policy number could not rule out the liability of the insurance company, as the claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number and they have gathered the same somehow and produced it before the Tribunal.
The Court further noted that in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal observed that the insurance company did not produce any evidence to establish that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The fact remained that the accident took place, and the death occurred; accordingly, the charge sheet was submitted.
Regarding the absence of a post-mortem procedure, the Court stated that the post-mortem not being conducted was not the fault of the claimants; it was the job of the police administration to conduct the post-mortem. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Raghunandan Prasad v. Vijay Chaubey, 2002 SCC OnLine Jhar 115.
Rejecting the contention that the charge sheet was not submitted under relevant sections, the Court held that merely because the relevant sections were not mentioned in the charge sheet, it did not mean that the accident did not take place. The Court stated that the oral evidence of the witnesses was consistent on the point of the accident and the earnings of the deceased.
Accordingly, the Court held that the grounds taken by Reliance had to be proved, but it failed to do so, thus, the Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award.
So far as the multiplier was concerned, the Court found that the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of the accident, and while placing reliance on Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, held that the multiplication was required to be of 16 instead of 17. The Court modified the award accordingly and upheld the impugned judgment. The Court also directed that the statutory amount deposited by Reliance shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, which would be utilised to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
[Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Lilmuni Madaiyan, M.A. No. 202 of 2017, decided on 16-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Sahay Gaurav Piyush
For the respondent: Kaushik Sarkhel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
