inder Mohan Menon @ Indra Mohan Menon Vs. National Insurance Company and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......in charge-sheet was shown as ranjit rawani, son of bhuneshwar prasad rawani. the insurance company did not adduce any evidence to show that in fact anjit kumar rawani and ranjit rawani were two different persons. we find that in charge-sheet ranjit rawani son of bhuneshwar prasad has been shown as an accused and in driving licance anjit kumar rawani has also been shown as son of bhuneshwar prasad rawani of villege loyabad. so 'ranjit' appears to be mistake for 'anjit'.8. in the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, tribunal committed an error in holding that ranjit rawani and not anjit kumar rawani was driver of the dumper at the time of accident.9. it is not a case where any term of insurance policy was violated. it was established that driver of dumper had a valid driving licance.10. we, therefore, modify the impugned judgment and award to the extent that entire amount of compensation with interest is payable by insurer dumper, rate of interest granted by tribunal is reduced from 12% to 9%.11. this appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award.12. statutory amount of rs. 25,000/-deposited by appellant by challan no. j-40 dated.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard. Perused lower Court records.

2. Dumper No. BHM-9696 belonged to M/S. B.K. Traders. Dhanbad and Indra Mohan Menon was proprietor thereof. On 22.2.2000 the said dumper met an accident wherein one Anand Prasad Gupta aged about 35 years lost his life.

3. Father, widow and children of the deceased filed claim application under Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 and tribunal in the impugned judgment and award, passed under Section 166 of the Act. assessed total amount of Rs. 1.30.000/- to be paid to them as compensation.

4. In F.I.R. Exhibit-1 registered on the basis of Jardbeyan, Exhibit-2, in respect of accident, name of driver was not disclosed, however, in the charge-sheet, Exhibit-3 police mentioned name of driver as Ranjit Rawani son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Rawani of village Loyabad, P.O. & P.S. Bansjora. Dis-trict-Dhanbad.

5. In the claim case, owner of vehicle appeared and filed written statment, wherein it was claimed that at the time of accident dumper was driven by driver, who had valid driving licance.

6. A photo copy of driving licance of one Anjit Kumar Rawani, son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Rawani of village Loyabad, District-Dhanbad was filed by the owner as original licance was not produced, it could not be marked as an Exhibit. D.W. 1 was examined on behalf of insurance company. He stated that National Insurance Company deputed its surveryor to verify licance of Anjit Kumar Rawani from the records of District Transport Office. Dhanbad on verification the said driving licance in the name of said Anjit Kumar Rawani was found to be valid. D.W. 3 in his cross examination claimed that owner of dumper had disclosed to him, the name of driver as Anjit Kumar Rawani.

7. Nothing was brought on record to explain the circumstances, under which, name of driver in charge-sheet was shown as Ranjit Rawani, son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Rawani. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence to show that in fact Anjit Kumar Rawani and Ranjit Rawani were two different persons. We find that in charge-sheet Ranjit Rawani son of Bhuneshwar Prasad has been shown as an accused and in driving licance Anjit Kumar Rawani has also been shown as son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Rawani of villege Loyabad. So 'Ranjit' appears to be mistake for 'Anjit'.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, tribunal committed an error in holding that Ranjit Rawani and not Anjit Kumar Rawani was driver of the dumper at the time of accident.

9. It is not a case where any term of insurance policy was violated. It was established that driver of dumper had a valid driving licance.

10. We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment and award to the extent that entire amount of compensation with interest is payable by insurer dumper, rate of interest granted by tribunal is reduced from 12% to 9%.

11. This appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award.

12. Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-deposited by appellant by challan No. J-40 dated 1.8.2001 in this appeal is permitted to be withdrawn by him on proper verification and in accordance with law.