2025:JHHC:35633 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 220 of 2016 ------ Reena Devi, wife of Late Darshan Ravidas, resident of village Chumba, P.O. and P.S. Giddi, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Rungta Project Mangalam 301, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata through Deepak Rungta, son of Ram Swaroop Rungta, resident of Vikas Bhavan, Bariyatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariaytu, District Ranchi at present Anandita Spunge Iron Factory Limited, Senegada, village Chumba, P.O. and P.S. Giddi, District Hazaribag 2. P.C. Singh, Incharge Director of M/s Rungta Project Ltd., resident of Vikas Bhavan, Bariyatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariaytu, District Ranchi, at present Anandita Spunge Iron Factory Limited, Senegada, village Chumba, P.O. and P.S. Giddi, District Hazaribag 3. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 10B, Q.C. Ganguli Sarani, P.O. Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata 4. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., having its local Branch in the premises of Laxmi Cinema Hall, Main Road, P.S. Sadar, P.O. and District Hazaribag .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Order No.05 / Dated : 28.11.2025 Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for modification of order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No.58 of 2012 on 03.11.2015. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the said appeal was preferred by the claimant- Reena Devi, the widow of deceased and Kaili Devi, mother of the deceased against the finding of contributory negligence by the trial Court by which 50% of the amount was deducted from the total compensation amount. 3. Learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the appeal being M.A. No.58 of 2012 with an observation that 50% of the compensation amount which was earlier deducted on account of contributory negligence 2025:JHHC:35633 2 be released in favour of both the claimants. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner/claimant- Reena Devi, the widow of deceased, that the claimant no.2- Kaili Devi died during pendency of the miscellaneous appeal on 27.03.2014 and the photocopy of the death certificate has been made Annexure 3 of the instant petition. Since this fact was not brought to the notice of the conducting counsel, by the petitioner therefore, a proper petition for deleting her name could not be ordered. However, since the appellant no.2- Kaili Devi had died before the pronouncement of the order in M.A. No.58 of 2012 on 03.11.2015, therefore, the appeal had abated on her behalf. So far the appellant no.2- Kaili Devi was concerned, a prayer is made to delete the name of Kaili Devi from the cause title of the order so that the payment can be received by Reena Devi, the sole surviving legal dependent of the deceased. 5. From the perusal of Annexure 3, it is apparent that before the disposal of M.A. No.58 of 2012, the claimant no.2- had died on 27.03.2014 and therefore, the appeal abated on her behalf in view of Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC. It is trite law that no specific order with regard to abatement of a suit or appeal need to be filed, particularly when the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court concerned. Ordinarily, the order of substitution after setting aside an abetment of deletion of a party where the right to sue does not survive in favour of any other legal heir or representative, is to be filed during pendency of the suit or appeal. 6. Here, peculiar facts of the present case is that, one of the claimant had died during the pendency of the appeal and the proper substitution petition was not filed at the stage of its pendency. 7. The main point for determination is whether claimant no.1 is entitled to receive the full compensation amount in view of the death of claimant no.2. 8. Justice and equity demands that the oversight in not deleting the name of claimant no.2 should not come in way in disbursement of compensation amount to the widow of the deceased. Although Order XXII 2025:JHHC:35633 3 Rule 9 of the CPC does not specifically sanctions such a course of action, but in exercise of Section 151 of the CPC and taking into account the beneficial nature of legislation, civil miscellaneous petition for deleting the name of Appellant no.2- Kaili Devi from the cause title of the order passed in M.A. No.58 of 2012 on 03.11.2015, is allowed and the said order modified accordingly. 9. Appellant No.1- Reena Devi will be entitled to the full compensation as the name of appellant no.2- Kaili Devi stands deleted. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 28.11.2025