National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Gumla vs Tara Devi & Others

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal and learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Rajiv Anand for the claimant.

Appellant - National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Gumla, P.S. & District-Gumla Insurer has preferred this appeal against the Award

dated 28.07.2012 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gumla in M.A.C. Case No. 10/2002, whereby the

claimant namely, Tara Devi, wife of Late Baldeo Pradhan, resident of Village-Banagutu, P.O. & P.S.-Basia, District - Gumla has been awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,66,000/- (after deducting Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid as ad interim compensation under Section 140 of

Motor Vehicles Act) plus interest @ 4% per annum from 04.06.2002 and the payment shall be made through account payee cheque within 30 days of

the award and in case of default, interest @ 9% per annum shall also be paid on the payable amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal, has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that Tara Devi is not dependent upon the

deceased Etwa Pradhan, rather Etwa Pradhan left behind his widow mother namely, Somari Devi, who preferred the claim application before the

learned Tribunal. During pendency of the claim application, the said Somari Devi, mother of the deceased died and she was substituted by her another

son Baldeo Pradhan, who is elder brother of the deceased Etwa Pradhan. During pendency of the claim application, said Baldeo Pradhan also died

substituted by his wife Tara Devi, as such Tara Devi is not dependent and is not entitled for any compensation on account of death of Etwa Pradhan.

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para-31). Para-31 of the aforesaid judgment reads as hereunder:-

Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors,

normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even

otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which the event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to

be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent

and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as

dependents, because they will either independent and earning, or married, or be dependent upon the father.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance

Company Limited Vs. Vinish Jain reported in (2018) 3 SCC 612 (Para-6&7). Para-6 & 7 of the aforesaid judgment are re-produced hereunder:-

Leave granted. This case relates to death of one A.P. Jain. He was 78 years of age. At the time of death, his annual income was assessed at Rs

3,64,500. The deduction made for personal expenses at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact that the claimants are his two major sons and two

granddaughters. The major sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased and the two granddaughters are primarily

dependent on their father and not on their grandfather. We are also of the view that the High Court has erred in granting Rs 50,000 as loss of love and

affection to each of the claimants. The total compensation granted is Rs 14,39,980 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

We feel that 50% deduction is called for and if this factor is taken into consideration then the loss of dependency is Rs 1,82,250 and if multiplier of 5

is used, the compensation works out to Rs 9,11,250. In addition, the claimants would be entitled to Rs 70,000 for love and affection and funeral

expenses, etc. as per the judgment of this Court passed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680] .

Accordingly, the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs 9,81,250 along with interest awarded by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the driver has no valid and effective licence

to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, as such, the appellant may be given right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle after indemnifying the

award, if the appeal is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal assisted by learned counsel, Mr. G.C. Jha has placed another judgment passed by the Apex Court in

the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643. Para-2, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the

judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:

An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married

daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal (hereinafter referred to as ""the deceased"") could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ""the Act"") she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependant upon the deceased.

In the present case the married daughter of the victim (the deceased) filed the claim under Section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

praying for statutory compensation on account of the death of her father. As stated, the application was made under Section 140 of the said Act. That

section makes it clear that ""no-fault liability"" is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. Before an order is passed under

Section 140, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the accident arose out of a motor vehicle which resulted in permanent disablement or death and that

the claim is made against the owner and the insurer of the offending motor vehicle.

In the present case, as stated above, the victim's married daughter has made her claim under Section 140 of the said Act saying that she has five

children; that they are minors; that she was brought up by her uncle; that after her mother's death the deceased lived in the same house in which the

claimant was living with her uncle before her marriage; that the deceased was a mason that after her marriage she lived with her husband and,

therefore, she was entitled to get statutory compensation under Section 140 of the said Act.

In the impugned judgment the High Court has correctly drawn a distinction between ""right to apply for compensation"" and ""entitlement to

compensation"". The High Court has rightly held that even a married daughter is a legal representative and she is certainly entitled to claim

compensation. It was further held, on the facts of the present case, that the married daughter was not dependent on her father. She was living with

her husband in her husband's house. Therefore, she was not entitled to claim statutory compensation. According to the High Court, the claimant was

not dependent on her father's income. Hence, she was not entitled to claim compensation based on ""no-fault liability"".

In my opinion, ""no-fault liability"", envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of ""strict liability"". In the former, the

compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs 50,000 in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from

the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallised amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate

of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal

representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive

compensation under ""no-fault liability"" in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the ""no-fault liability"" under Section 140

of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that no information was given by the Owner of the Vehicle insured as contemplated under

Section 134 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:-

Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person.-- When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of

an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall--

(a) unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical

attention for the injured person, 1[by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical

practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for

any procedural formalities], unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise;

(b) give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence,

including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police

station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence;

[(c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely:-

-

(i) insurance policy number and period of its validity;

(ii) date, time and place of accident;

(iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident;

(iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.

(Emphasis supplied) Explanation.--For the purposes of this section the expression ""driver"" includes the owner of the vehicle.] Learned counsel for the

appellant has further submitted that under Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no information was given. Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles

Act is profitably quoted hereunder:-

Section 158(6) - As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this

section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of

recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the

concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to

such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.

Learned Amicus Curiae , Mr. Rajiv Anand has submitted that the point which has been raised by appellant has never been agitated before the learned

Tribunal, which will be apparent from the written statement filed by the Insurance Company quoted in para-5 of the impugned judgment, which may

be profitably quoted hereunder:-

In the W.S. Filed on behalf of O.P. No. 3 the National Insurance Company Ltd. It is stated that the claim petition is not maintainable against the

O.P. The claimant has not cause of action against it. The statement regarding monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- has denied. The date,

time and place of the alleged accident on 12.4.2002 at village Turundu near mission school at main road is denied. It has not been mentioned in the

claim petition as to who was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. The D.L. Of the tractor driver was not genuine and has not been issued by

the proper authority. The compensation amount claimed is excessive and vague. This is material to note here that in the W.S. the insurance of the

accidenting tractor has neither been admitted nor specifically denied by the O.P.

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that since the question of dependency has never been raised before the learned Tribunal even after substitution

of the legal heirs by filing any additional evidence. But after keeping the claim case pending for 10 years without agitating this issue before the learned

Tribunal, the appellant has raised this issue before the High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal.

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in his respectful submission, dependency has to be considered while considering the maintainability of the

claim application at initial stage while adjudicating the quantum of compensation, but claim application is maintainable so far legal heir is concerned.

Learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:-

Application for compensation.--(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section

165 may be made--

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be

made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be

impleaded as respondents to the application.

1[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area

in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or

within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that

effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] (3) 2[***] 1[""(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it

under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.] Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that as per

benevolent legislation, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount on the same day of accident as it is being done in the abroad,

but in India the Insurance Company has developed habit of litigation by keeping the matter pending. It is the pious duty of the Insurance Company to

indemnify the award to the claimant as soon as possible because Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted for the purpose of benefit to such victim of

road accident. In the present case, accident took place on 12.04.2002 Etwa Pradhan lost his life, leaving behind his widow mother Somari Devi, who

preferred claim application before the learned claim tribunal, but due to litigation, the case remained pending for several years in the meantime, poor

and old lady after having shock of death of earning son also died, as such this plea which has been raised by the appellant is not sustainable in view of

maintainability of the claim application. Dependency is to be only considered with respect to the quantum of compensation, but a legal representative

can claim such compensation. Somari Devi died leaving behind her another son Baldeo Pradhan, who also died during pendency of the claim

application by leaving behind his widow Tara Devi, as such Tara Devi is legal heir so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that this fact has been considered by the Apex Court recently in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Birender and Another, reported in (2020)11 SCC 356, wherein the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

has been considered. The Apex Court has formulated the issue at para-12 and answered the same at para-13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment, which

may be profitably quoted hereunder:-

The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married

son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression ""legal representative"" of the deceased. This

Court in Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] had expounded that liability to pay

compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression ""legal

representative"" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC

(Cri) 585] , the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12) ""9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of

death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim

petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made

on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was

justified in its view [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 523 : (2004) 2 CHN 370] that the appellant could maintain a

claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to

whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.

According to Section 2(11) CPC, ""legal representative"" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any

person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the

estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).

As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [Custodian of Branches of Banco

National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its

scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the

property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without

title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression ""legal

representative"". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC

(Cri) 482] a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a

wife, husband, parent and child.

In para 15 of Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] , while adverting to the

provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will

be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of S.H. Kapadia, J., as his Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between

right to apply for compensation"" and ""entitlement to compensation"". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the

legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the

deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the

aid of Respondents 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.

It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily

follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would

be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent

on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the

claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 per annum.

In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young

age of 48 years.

The next issue is about the deduction of the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules from the

compensation amount determined by the Tribunal in terms of the decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shashi Sharma [Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, (2016) 9 SCC 627 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 713 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 90] . This Court, after analysing the relevant

rules, opined as follows: (SCC pp. 644-46, paras 23-27) ""23. Reverting back to Rule 5, sub-rule (1) provides for the period during which the

dependants of the deceased employee may receive financial assistance equivalent to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the

deceased employee in the normal course without raising a specific claim. Sub-rule (2) provides that the family shall be eligible to receive family

pension as per the normal Rules only after the period during which they would receive the financial assistance in terms of sub-rule (1). Sub-rule (3)

guarantees the family of a deceased government employee of a government residence in occupation for a period of one year from the date of death of

the employee, upon payment of normal rent/licence fee. By virtue of sub-rule (4), an ex gratia assistance of Rs 25,000 is provided to the family of the

deceased employee to meet the immediate needs on the loss of the bread earner. Sub-rule (5) clarifies that house rent allowance shall not be a part of

allowance for the purposes of calculation of assistance.

... As regards the second part, it deals with income from other source which any way is receivable by the dependants of the deceased government

employee. That cannot be deducted from the claim amount for determination of a just compensation under the 1988 Act.

The claimants are legitimately entitled to claim for the loss of ""pay and wages"" of the deceased government employee against the tortfeasor or

insurance company, as the case may be, covered by the first part of Rule 5 under the 1988 Act. The claimants or dependants of the deceased

government employee (employed by the State of Haryana), however, cannot set up a claim for the same subject falling under the first part of Rule 5--

pay and allowances"", which are receivable by them from employer (the State) under Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules. In that, if the deceased employee

was to survive the motor accident injury, he would have remained in employment and earned his regular pay and allowances. Any other interpretation

of the said Rules would inevitably result in double payment towards the same head of loss of ""pay and wages"" of the deceased government employee

entailing in grant of bonanza, largesse or source of profit to the dependants/claimants. ...

Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable under the 2006 Rules is absent. That, however, does not mean that the Claims Tribunal

should remain oblivious to the fact that the claim towards loss of pay and wages of the deceased has already been or will be compensated by the

employer in the form of ex gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds under Rule 5(1). The Claims Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim and

determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount receivable by the dependants/claimants towards the head of ""pay

and allowances"" in the form of ex gratia financial assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants. True it is, that the 2006

Rules would come into play if the government employee dies in harness even due to natural death. At the same time, the 2006 Rules do not expressly

enable the dependants of the deceased government employee to claim similar amount from the tortfeasor or insurance company because of the

accidental death of the deceased government employee. The harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the 1988 Act,

therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee under the 2006 Rules towards the

head financial assistance equivalent to ""pay and other allowances"" that was last drawn by the deceased government employee in the normal course.

This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, is the

total entitlement under the head of ""loss of income"". So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits is concerned, if

the deceased government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the 1988 Act. For, it is not covered by

the 2006 Rules. Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub- rule (5) of

Rule 5 including family pension, life insurance, provident fund, etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any

way would be paid to the dependants of the deceased government employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C. Rebello [Helen C. Rebello

v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197] and Patricia Jean Mahajan [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan,

(2002) 6 SCC 281 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1294] cases.

A priori, the appellants must succeed only to the extent of amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of

Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules, towards financial assistance equivalent to the loss of pay and wages of the deceased employee for the period specified.

(emphasis supplied) Learned Amicus Curiae for the claimant has thus submitted that so far the point regarding dependency raised before this Court by

the appellant Insurance Company is concerned, the same has never been raised before the learned Tribunal as such in view of the judgment passed by

the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, the same is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that except the plea taken by the appellant in the written statement nothing can be agitated by the

appellant before this Court. From perusal of joint written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 owner and opposite party no. 2 driver of the tractor it

will be apparent from the fact that to prove that driver was not having valid licence, no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance

Company before the learned Tribunal.

Learned Amicus Curiae has referred the joint written statement filed by the opposite party no. 1 owner and opposite party no. 2 driver of the tractor,

which is quoted in para-4 of the impugned order, which may be profitably quoted hereunder:-

In the joint W.S. filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1 the owner and O.P. No. 2 the driver of the Tractor that petition is not maintainable against them.

The claimant has no cause of action against the O.P. The compensation amount is excessive and vague. No such accident took place at Turundu

mission school of main road, Kamdara. It is submitted in Para-7 of the W.S. that the tractor No. BR 41 3600 and Tractor No. BR 41 3601 were

insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Palkot road, Gumla under policy No. 170204/2001/6310736 (ren) 2000/97014401/1007 valid from

19.2.2002 to 18.2.2003. Other document of the tractor road tax token, fitness certificate, registration were also up to date. The O.P. No. 2 Sanjay

Kumar was duly authorized by the registration authority to drive the tractor.

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the issue with regard to driving licence has rightly been considered by the learned Tribunal in para-16 of

the impugned judgment, as on the date of the accident, the documents of the vehicle and the driving licence were genuine and therefore, the Issue

Nos. 1 to 7 decided in favour of the claimant.

Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that so far the legal right of Tara Devi is concerned, the same has already been argued above. But so

far dependency of Tara Devi is concerned, this Court may peruse the evidence of Tara Devi recorded at para-14 of the impugned judgment while she

was examined as A.W.-4. Para-14 of the impugned judgment reads as follows:-

A.W.-4 Tara Devi is the claimant of the case. She has supported the case and has deposed that she is entitled to receive the compensation

amount. During cross-examination the claimant has deposed that the name of her husband was Baldeo Pradhan she has voter I.D. Card and she can

produce the same in the court. She is illiterate and gives thumb impression. At the time of accident Etwa was 21 years old. Etwa, Baldeo and Laldeo

were three brothers but all the three have died. Etwa fulfilled the expenses of the house from his earning. Etwa did not maintain any document

regarding his every month earning.

(Emphasis Supplied) Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has no merit in the appeal even

though they have assailed the impugned award of Rs. 2,66,000 along with 4% interest from 04.06.2002 to the claimant till the date of award, if the said

amount is not paid within 30 days then there shall be a penal interest @ 9%.

Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that this Court in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash &

Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 has a duty that where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of

compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for High Court is to examine the facts and by applying relevant principles

determine just compensation as such this Court may consider the compensation to be just.

From perusal of record, it appears that the admitted fact is Etwa Pradhan was working as labourer in the offending tractor bearing registration no.

BR-41-3600 and trailor BR-41-3601 duly insured before the National Insurance Company Limited, Palkot Road, Gumla under Policy No.

170204/2001/6310736 (ren), 2000 /97014401 /10007 valid from 19.02.2002 to 18.02.2003. The deceased was earning to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per

month as a labourer and died at the age of 25 years, but as per post-mortem report, Exhibit-3, shows that the age of the deceased has been assessed

by the Doctor to be 28 years.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that quantum is not assailed by the Insurance Company before this Court, as such this Court shall not proceed in the

directions of quantum, rather the only ground for appeal by the appellant Insurance Policy is the dependency and violation of terms and condition of

the policy.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court, consider the compensation to be just and fair compensation, dismissing the appeal preferred by the

Insurance Company as grounds taken by the appellant that amount has to be paid to the dependent is not the correct ground rather amount has to be

paid to the legal heirs on the basis of computation made with respect to the dependent of the deceased at the time of his death.

So far the ground regarding violation of Section 134(c) and 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court has already issued direction in the case

of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607. The Apex Court in para-31 of the aforesaid judgment has

held that whenever the Insurance Companies find that the driver of the Insured Vehicle possesses fake / forged driving licence, they should lodge a

complaint with the police concerned for prosecution. This will reduce the incidence of fake licence and increase the road travel safety and thereafter a

direction was issued to the Registrar to send copies of the order to (i) the Chief Secretaries and the Directors General of Police of all the States,

(ii) Registrars General of all the High Courts for compliance with the directions.

Since, such direction has already been issued by the Apex Court this Court directs the Registrar General of the High Court to send a letter to the

Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, all the Principal District Judges, as well as District Legal Services

Authority and the Superintendent of Police of all the districts for compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash (Supra)

along with copies of the judgment.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Before part with judgment, this Court appreciates the able assistance of learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Rajiv Anand in assisting the Court in disposal of

this appeal.

The Statutory Amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of filing of appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal for indemnifying

the part of the award. Balance amount shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal within a

reasonable period to the legal heir Tara Devi as accident is of dated 12.04.2002 and till date she has not been given benefit of benevolent legislation.

Let the L.C.R. be sent down.