IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.572 of 2007 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICENO.1, RED CROSS BUILDING, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PANTA (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3 IN THE COURT BELOW) …. APPELLANT Versus 1. REETA DEVI WIFE OF RAM PRIT PAWAN 2. JAGO DEVI WIFE OF LATE DILCHAND PASWAN 3. VIKKY KUMAR SON OF RAM PRIT PASWAN (MINOR) 4. RAHUL KUMAR SON OF RAM PRIT PASWAN (MINOR) 5. NITU KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAM PRIT PASWAN (MINOR) CLAIMANT NO.1 IS THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED AND LEGAL GUARDIAN OF HER SONS AND DAUGHTERS RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAE BAHAPUR, POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA (CLAIMANTS IN THE COURT BELOW) 6. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SRI RAJENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HIDYATPUR, POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING NO.BR-IT-9201 (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 IN THE COURT BELOW) 7. BIRJU PAL SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HIDAYATPUR, POLICE STATION BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 IN THE COURT BELOW) …. RESPONDENTS ----------- 7. 4.2.2011 The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.5.2007 and award dated 17.7.2007 passed in Claim case No.4 of 2005 by the Additional District Judge XI, Patna, by which the respondent nos.1 to 5 have been given compensation to the tune of Rs.1,69,500/-. The short facts of the case are that the deceased Ramprit Paswan was traveling on a tempo on 17.2.2003 which overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and he sustained serious injuries on account of which he later died. The respondents-claimants examined five - 2 - witnesses on their behalf and exhibited the documents pertaining to the occurrence, whereas the appellant examined one witness, who proved the investigation report. After adducing evidence the Tribunal concluded that the driver had a valid licence and the tempo was insured with the appellant and since the deceased had died on account of rash and negligent driving he was liable to be compensated. In view of such finding the Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned above. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was traveling on a vehicle which was being used for commercial purposes and, therefore, the owner was liable for compensating the claimants as also that after the award was prepared a report was received from the Regional Transport Authority, Patna that the permit with regard to the auto was not issued from there. On behalf of the respondents-claimants it has been submitted that they were liable for compensation and it was not their concern as to whether it was the insurance company or the owner who was to make good their loss. Considering the entire aspects of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned since on close examination of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the claimants amply proved that the deceased - 3 - had lost his life on account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver which was insured and, therefore, they were liable for compensation. In view of such, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. However, in view of the subsequent documentary communication that the tempo did not have the valid permit the appellant would be at liberty to proceed in recovering the said compensatory amount from the owner of the tempo in accordance with law. In the mean while, the Additional District Judge XI, Patna or his successor in his office shall disburse the compensation amount immediately to the claimants within a period of three months on receipt of this order. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal for being included in the compensatory amount. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )