Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rameshwar Mahato & Others on 13 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 294 of 2018
........
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Mahato & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
05/13.04.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alok Lal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against
award dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned District Judge-IV-cum-
M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in M.A.C. Case No.180/2014, whereby the
claimants namely Rameshwar Mahato, S/o Late Sewa Mahato and
Kaushalya Devi, W/o Rameshwar Mahato have been awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,34,000/- alongwith simple interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of admission of the suit i.e.
22.08.2014 till the date of realization. The Insurance Company shall
indemnify the award within a period of 30 days from the date of
order. However, Insurance Company has been given liberty to
recover the same from the owner of the Tempo bearing registration
no. JH-02AB-7394 and the Insurer of the Tempo i.e. Bharti Axa
General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the
written statement, the Insurance Company has categorically stated
that defendant denied that the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing
registration No.JH-03A-7098 was insured before Insurance
Company at the time of accident and put the defendant no.1,
Churaman Mahato, S/o Sri Bechar Mahato, owner of Bolero bearing
registration No.JH-03A-7098 to strict proof thereof.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Insurance Company has filed a petition with an affidavit sworn on
27.04.2015. The content of affidavit are as follows:-
1. That the Insurance Policy No. 2133048/18/87/13/02095 in the
name of Churaman Mahato for the Vehicle No. JH-03A-7089 is
FAKE POLICY, as the same has never been issued by any Branch
office of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. here at Ranchi.
2. That from the careful perusal of the above Fake Policy, the
following discrepancies have been found.
(i) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi has got no
any Branch Office here at Sahid Chowk, Ranchi.
(ii) The office Code of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ranchi starts with Code no.210601 but in the Xerox copy of
the Policy sent for verification it is mentioned as 2133048,
which is not at all the code of our Office.
(iii) That the Seal of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
the Signature of the Branch Manager is Fake in the
aforesaid Policy.
(iv) No Receipt number mention in the aforesaid Policy.
(v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi issues System
generated Policies but the Policy sent for verification is
Typed.
3. That I have gone through the Statements made here in above
and found the same to be true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Sworn and singed this Affidavit here at Ranchi on this the
27th day of April, 2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
though the owner of the Bolero Vehicle, Churaman Mahato has
appeared before the learned Tribunal pursuant to the notice, but he
has not filed written statement thus he was debarred to file written
statement.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while
discussing Issue nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 at para-14 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Tribunal has considered the documents
mentioned in para-11 of the impugned judgment, but did not
specifically mentioned the affidavit sworn by the Insurance
Company on 27.04.2015, as stated above, as such, the liability,
which has been fastened upon the Insurance Company with right of
recovery from the defendant no. 3, owner of Tempo bearing
registration no. JH-02AB-7394 and defendant no. 4, Insurer of
Tempo bearing registration no. JH-02AB-7394 is unnecessary, as
Policy is fake, as such, the entire liability should be upon the owner
of Bolero and there is no reason that why the learned Tribunal has
given right of recovery in favour of the Insurance Company after
indemnifying the award to the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that had it
been a case that Insurance Policy is genuine and there is violation of
the terms and condition of the policy, then right of recovery could
have been given, which may be considered to be justified, but in case
where policy is fake, no such liability can be fastened upon the
Insurance Company.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
there is delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation
of same, I.A. No.4669/2018 has been preferred.
Let notice be issued to respondent no. 3 Churaman Mahato,
S/o Bechar Mahato, resident of Village & P.O. - Harli, P.S. -
Barkagaon, District - Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), (Owner of Bolero
bearing registration no. JH-03A-7089), so as to place the insurance
paper of the offending vehicle and also to the respondent nos. 1 & 2
i.e. claimants Rameshwar Mahato, son of Late Sewa Mahato and
Kaushalya Devi, wife of Rameshwar Mahato, both resident of
Village - Koiritand, P.O. - Achaljamo, P.S. - Bishungarh, District -
Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), at present resident of Manaitand, P.O. &
P.S. - Dhansar, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand), on their both
address, under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as
well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed
within a period of three weeks with liberty to the claimants that they
may also prefer an appeal, if so they advised.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
