-1- M.A. No. 355 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 355 of 2023 Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, having its office Kedar Bhawan, 3rd Floor, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District- Patna … Appellant -Versus- 1. Mousami Majumdar, wife of Late Prabir Majumdar 2. Gaurav Majumdar, son of Late Prabir Majumdar Both residents of House No.151, J.C. Mallick Road, Hirapur, P.O. Hirapur, P.S. & District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 3. Abid Jamir, son of Jamruddin Khan, resident of Bhaga Bazaar, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : ----- 04/29.01.2025 I.A. No.11450 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 3 days in preferring this appeal. 2. For the reasons assigned in the said I.A., the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed and the delay of 3 days in preferring this appeal is, hereby, condoned. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No.11450 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of. 4. Heard Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 5. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 28.06.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.174 of 2019 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad. 6. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants preferred the said claim case under Sections 140 and 166 of the -2- M.A. No. 355 of 2023 Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation of Rs.16,14,400/- against the defendants. He then submits that it has been stated that on 23.09.2018 at about 03:00 p.m., the deceased Prabir Mazumdar and his wife were travelling by a I-10 car bearing No. JH-10AH-8338 and heading towards Dhanbad from Kolkata and at about 07:00 p.m., when they reached Junglepur More, G.T. Road, P.S. Govindpur, a truck bearing No. HR-37B-4731 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, suddenly applied brake due to which I-10 car dashed against the truck as a result deceased, who was sitting in front seat of car, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He further submits that it has been disclosed that the deceased was a Manager under Bharat Service Station, G.T. Road, Barwa More, P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad and he was getting Rs.19,500/- per month as a salary. He also submits that the said truck was insured with the insurance company, namely, Shriram General Insurance Company, which is the appellant in the present case. In this background, he submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently and only on this ground, he submits that this appeal may kindly be admitted. 7. Issue no. III was framed by the learned Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the truck. P.W.1- Mousami Majumdar, wife of the deceased has stated in her evidence that she along with her son have filed the said claim case for compensation against the owner and insurer of truck no. HR-37B/4731. She has repeated the same thing which has been hereinabove in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. She has further stated that truck no. HR-37B-4731 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and he suddenly applied -3- M.A. No. 355 of 2023 brake due to which I-10 car dashed against the truck from behind resultantly her husband sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. In cross- examination, she has stated that at the time of accident she was travelling in the same car and in the said accident one of the friends, namely, Rona Ghosh also died. 8. P.W 2-Ashok Kumar Singh was examined as a partner of Bharat Services Station, G.T. Road, Barwa More, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad. He has stated that the deceased was working in the Petrol Pump for last 20 years and getting salary @ Rs. 19,500/- per month. 9. The FIR was marked as Ext.-1 and charge-sheet was marked as Ext.-2 and it was submitted against the driver, namely, Anil Prasad. Ext.-X was the postmortem report. 10. In view of the above, a criminal proceeding was already placed on record on completion of investigation of the police i.e. sufficient to prove negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In light of that, the learned Tribunal has found that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. Further, the learned Tribunal has given right of recovery upon the insurance company from the owner in its award. A cogent reason based on the evidence on record, has been given by the learned Tribunal in coming to the said finding with regard to the said issue and only that issue has been raised in the present appeal for admitting the appeal. Apart from that, no other ground has been argued on behalf of the appellant. 11. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no error in the award of the learned Tribunal and, as such, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed. -4- M.A. No. 355 of 2023 12. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company will be transmitted to the learned Tribunal, which will be utilized in certifying the award in favour of the claimants. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/