RANCHI, India, Jan. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:
1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection arise from the same judgment of award and compensation passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.25,91,098/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization has been allowed in favour of the claimants against the appellant- Insurance Company.
2. The Insurance-Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation, wherein liability has been solely fixed on it mainly on the ground that the claimant nos. 3 and 4 are father and mother, whereas claimant no. 1, who sustained permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident on 26.05 2013 with 90% permanent disability while he was travelling by Tata Magic bearing registration No. JH 01R-3710 which met with an accident with a Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No. JH09L-8178 .
3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation by recording a finding of fact that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruti Swift Dezire Car under the following heads: -
Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoEHh9BClSEIM85JGIqgyCtY99EO7JqkqLfZrxXYb6Aft&caseno=C.O./23/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010129432021&state_code=7&appFlag=)
4. The Insurance-Company is in appeal on the ground that it was a case of composite negligence which was caused by the driver of both the vehicles in equal measures as it took place due to head on collision.
5. It is argued that the learned Tribunal without considering the factual aspects of the accident has held the driver of the Maruti Swift Dezire Car solely liable for the accident and total liability has been fixed on it. An FIR being Petarbar P.S. Case No. 73/13 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC was lodged against the driver of both the vehicles and after investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.-6) was submitted.
6. So far as the plea of contributory negligence taken by Insurance-Company is concerned, it is unsupported by any substantive evidence. It is true that FIR was lodged against driver of both vehicles, but the Charge-sheet (Ext.- 6) after investigation was filed against the driver of Maruti Swift Dezire Car. Further, C.W.1 and C.W. 2 who were also travelling in the same vehicle Tata Magic have attributed the accident to the driver of the Maruti Swift Dezire Car. Under the circumstance, this plea is unsustainable.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, so far as M. A. No. 285 of 2018, preferred by the Insurance Company is concerned, this Court does not find any merit for the reason that although the FIR was filed against both the vehicles, but the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle under the insurance cover of appellant Insurance Company. It is a case of permanent disability and the claimant as well as the other two witnesses have attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Swift Dezire. There is no other contrary evidence.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoEHh9BClSEIM85JGIqgyCtY99EO7JqkqLfZrxXYb6Aft&caseno=C.O./23/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010129432021&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
