Admissions Made In Pleadings Are Binding U/S 21 Evidence Act, Cannot Be Retracted At Appellate Stage: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that admissions made in pleadings are binding under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be retracted at the appellate stage.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “So far as the second plea raised by the Appellant assailing the impugned Award on the ground that the claimant injured had sustained no injury by causing the accident by the offending Truck. This plea of the fact has been raised on behalf of the Appellant for the first time at the stage of appeal.”
“While before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company in its written statement has admitted that the claimant Ashim Parveen @ Nagmi injured had sustained injury in the accident caused by the contributory negligence of the driver of Bolero as well as offending Truck. This admission made by the Appellant-Insurance Company in the pleading of the written statement is binding upon the Appellant Insurance Company under Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act and cannot deviate from the same at the stage of appeal for the first time,” added Justice Chand.
The Court affirmed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of ₹2,85,275 in a motor accident case, while striking down the imposition of penal interest for delayed payment of compensation.
The appeal arose from a claim petition filed by Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi, who sustained injuries in a 2017 road accident caused by a truck driving rashly and negligently. The Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation with interest at 6% per annum and an additional penal interest of 9% if the amount was not paid within 60 days of the award. Dissatisfied, the Insurance Company challenged the award on two grounds: the legality of the penal interest and the claimant's alleged lack of injuries from the accident involving the truck.
The case originated from a claim petition filed by Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi, who stated that in 2017, while traveling in a Bolero car after attending a marriage ceremony, the vehicle was hit by a truck driven rashly and negligently. The collision caused the death of Md. Adil Ansari on the spot and injuries to other passengers, including the claimant. The claimant, a private tutor and B.Sc. student earning ₹10,000 per month, sought compensation for the injuries sustained.
The Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the owner and driver of the offending truck, the insured owner, and others who failed to appear despite notices being issued. It awarded a sum of ₹2,85,275 to the claimant with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the application until realization. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay a penal interest of 9% if the compensation was not paid within 60 days of the award.
The National Insurance Company challenged the award on two grounds: the imposition of penal interest and the claimant's alleged lack of injuries from the accident involving the truck.
The High Court struck down the penal interest, holding that the imposition was contrary to law. It stated, “the Appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation along with interest thereon within 60 days from the date of passing the Award and in failure of the same the Insurance Company was directed to pay the 9% interest on the amount of compensation till the date of realization of the compensation amount.”
“Up to this extent the impugned Award by which the penal interest has been directed to be paid is found bad in the eye of law and same requires interference as the penal interest should not have been awarded by the learned Tribunal because the claimant had to get the impugned Award executed under Section 174 of the M.V. Act. As such in the impugned Award penal interest is hereby struck off,” the court added.
Concluding its analysis, the Court upheld the compensation award except for the penal interest, which was struck down. The appeal was thereby partly allowed.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 183