Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 125 (JHR)

Nitai Kumar Paul v. Tapas Haldar

2010-01-27

M.Y.EQBAL, PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
Order Since these two appeals one by Insurance Company (M.A. No. 32 of 2009) and another by claimants (MA No. 18 of 2009) have been filed against the same judgment and award, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- A claim case was filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death of one Bipin Bihari Paul in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 17.2.2006 while the deceased was coming by his bicycle from Telipara, Hirapur, he was dashed by Maruti car bearing registration No. JH-100/8689 which was driven by a lady rashly and negligently. The respondent-owner of the vehicle appeared and filed Written Statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the lady driving the vehicle was his wife and holding a valid driving licence. The appellant-Insurance Company on the other hand took a defence that the lady who was driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. The tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the evidence recorded a finding that the vehicle was being driven by Sapna Haldar @ Rupna Haldar who was holding a valid driving licence. Accordingly the claim case was allowed. 3. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that at the relevant time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Rupna Haldar, who was not holding a valid driving licence. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of F.I.R. a criminal case was instituted against Rupna Haldar. However, on question, Mr. Jha submitted that in the criminal case instituted against Rupna Haldar, Sapna Haldar appeared and she claims herself to be Rupna Haldar @ Sapna Haldar wife of Tapas Haldar. 4. Prima facie, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Sapna Haldar and Rupna Haldar are the same person and she is holding a valid driving licence in the name of Sapna Haldar W/o Tapas Haldar, needs no interference. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in MA No. 32 of 2009, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. So far M.A. No. 18 of 2009 is concerned, the appellants-claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in MA No. 32 of 2009, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. So far M.A. No. 18 of 2009 is concerned, the appellants-claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation. Undisputedly, the deceased was a 18 years old boy and was a student. Although the claimants made out a case that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month but no cogent evidence was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, took the income of deceased at Rs. 2,000/- and assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,42,000/-. 7. In absence of sufficient reliable evidence, it cannot be believed that a student of B.Sc. Part-I was earning Rs. 5000/- per month from tuition. Even in such cases if notional income is taken, the compensation amount would not be more than Rs. Two lacs. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable which needs no enhancement. Accordingly, M.A. No. 18 of 2009 also stands dismissed. 9. After we dictated the judgment Mr. G.C. Jha. learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company makes a prayer that the statutory amount deposited in this appeal may be disbursed to the claimants. 10. If the claimants files such application. the court shall permit the claimants to withdraw the amount.