Jharkhand High Court
New India Assurance Company ... vs Unknown on 7 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 91 of 2009
New India Assurance Company Limited, Giridih .... .... Appellant
Versus
1(a). Sanjay Kumar
1(b). Saurabh Kumar
1(c). Preeti Kumari
1(d). Swati Sharma
2. Most. Kabita
3. Most Budhani
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Basav Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s Ramakant Tiwary, S.K. Murtty, S.K. Singh
& Vijay Gopal, Advocates
Oral Order
23 / Dated : 07.02.2022
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
against the judgment and award passed in M.V. Claim Case No. 21 of
2006 whereby and whereunder, the compensation of Rs.2,17,628/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded against the
appellant and in favour of claimants.
2. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the
offending vehicle being Commander Jeep No. JH 11B - 7117 was being
used for commercial purposes whereas the insurance policy was to cover
private vehicle only. It is submitted that the policy was under the
certificate of insurance of private car in favour of insured Umesh Prasad
Sharma valid from 20.05.2005 to 19.05.2006. In violation of the insurance
policy the vehicle was being plied for commercial purpose which will be
evident from the deposition of A.W. 1 who has deposed in paragraph 3
that her deceased husband Mahendra Rabidas was returning from Tisri by
the said Jeep on the date of accident at Tisri by paying fare.
3. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
A.W. 1 Most. Kabita is not an eye witness to the accident which will be
evident from paragraph 10 of her deposition wherein she has stated that
she had not seen the accident. I find merit in the argument on behalf of the
respondents that when she had not seen the accident then her testimony as
to whether the deceased had paid fair or not cannot be accepted on the
face value. On the other hand, the direct eye witness to the accident,
A.W. 3 Anita Devi who was also coming in the same Jeep has not stated a
word regarding the fare being paid. No evidence has been led on behalf of
the Insurance Company to show that the vehicle was being plied for
commercial purpose. Under the circumstances, the plea of the Insurance
Company that the offending vehicle was plying for commercial purpose is
not supported by evidence.
4. The second plea that has been taken up is that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid and effecting driving license
which will be evident from Ext. B/1 which is the report of the District
Transport Office, Hazaribagh. The report says that the certificate of
driving license No. 3337/67 in the name of Md. Asraf Hussain had not
been issued by the District Transport Office, Hazaribagh. From the FIR
of Sadar (Tisri) P.S. Case No. 58 of 2005 registered under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of IPC it appears that the case was registered regarding
the accident against unknown driver of the Commander Jeep being No.
JH 011B - 7117. The police on investigation submitted the charge-sheet
against Asraf Ali, Son of Abdul Samad. The learned Tribunal has noted in
paragraph 8 of the judgment that the photocopy of the driving license had
been filed on behalf of the claimants showing the driving license was
renewed on 04.02.2003 by the District Transport Office, Giridih but the
verification report relied upon by the Insurance Company has been issued
by District Transport Office, Hazaribagh. The District Transport Office,
Giridih has not verified the driving license of the driver and, therefore, the
report of the Investigator has not accepted by the Tribunal.
I find that the Tribunal has given cogent reason for discarding
the evidence of the investigator regarding the invalidity of the driving
licence.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity on this
count in the order of the learned Tribunal.
The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. The Insurance
Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited at the
time of filing of the appeal.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT
