Sanjeev Kumar Keshri vs Saraswati Devi
2025 Latest Caselaw 4576 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Keshri vs Saraswati Devi on 7 April, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                   2025:JHHC:10850



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               M. A. No. 229 of 2012
         Sanjeev Kumar Keshri, S/o Sri Dwarika Prasad Keshri, R/o Thana
         Road, Sisai, P.O. & P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla.
                                                      .... .. ... Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
         1.Saraswati Devi, W/o Late Suresh Sahu
         2.Dinesh Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Suresh Sahu
         3.Anita Kumari, D/o Late Suresh Sahu
         4.Lalita Kumari, D/o Late Suresh Sahu
         Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are permanent resident of Village- Bhadoli Sisai,
         P.O. & P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla and Resp. No.3 is presently residing
         at Luxmi Nagar, P.O. Hehal & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi-834005.
         5.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gumla Branch, Gumla, Palkot Road,
         P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla.
                                          .            .. ... ...Respondent(s)
                     ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

        For the Appellant (s)        :    Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
        For the Claimant             :    Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
        For the Ins. Comp.            :   Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate
                     ......

32/ 07.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The owner of the vehicle/ appellant is in appeal against the impugned judgment of Award dated 21.08.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.264 of 2004 by which the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been fixed on the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the three grounds:-

(i) Firstly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place within the District of Gumla and the claimants were also the residents of District- Gumla which will be evident from the deposition of the wife of the deceased (C.W.1) who has deposed that since before the accident, she had been living in Sisai which falls under the District of Gumla.

Further, in Para-15, she has deposed that she had never ventured to any other place, than the Village- Bhadauli. Daughter of the deceased has been examined as C.W.2, who has also deposed in Para-18 that on the date of deposition i.e. 25.04.2008, she was living at Ranchi for the last two years. It is contended that her mother and brother(s) were living at Village- Sisai. The incident took place on 12.10.2004 and, therefore, the 2025:JHHC:10850

learned Tribunal at Ranchi had no jurisdiction in terms of Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act.

(ii) Secondly it is argued that the Tractor bearing Registration No.JH07A 4413 was not involved in the accident and the same shall be evident from the judgment delivered in the criminal case arising out of G.R. No.618 of 2004 (arising out of Sisai P.S. Case No.103 of 2004 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) IPC. The incident has been attributed to the deceased (Suresh Sahu) who is alleged to have taken wife and was travelling on the said Tractor after he got down from the tractor and was dashed by some other vehicle;

(iii) Lastly it is argued that the tractor was under the insurance cover of National Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No.5) and it was financed by Uco Bank, Sisai, therefore, the premium of renewal of the instalment was also paid by UCO Bank and the same was marked as Z for identification, from which it will be evident that the premium amount was dispatched on 12.10.2004 whereas the accident took place in the evening of the same day. As there was no laches on the part of the insured and the amount had already been dispatched and, therefore, in view of Section 64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938, it is the insurance company to pay the compensation amount if any, to the claimants.

3. In this regard, reliance is placed on 2004 2 ACJ 1209, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Bhal Nalkantha Khadi wherein the draft had already been made before the accident, but the Insurance Company received the proposal along with the premium by the demand-draft after the said accident. The High Court of Gujarat held that in such situation, it was the Insurance Company which will be liable to pay the compensation. The judgment rendered in 2006 0 Supreme (MP) 812 is also to the same effect.

4. I find force in the argument on behalf of the claimants/ respondents that so far as the criminal case is concerned, there is no finding recorded by the criminal Court that the tractor, in question, was not involved in the accident. Further in any case, the judgment of a Court exercising criminal jurisdiction, is not binding on the Civil Court. Further, the finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of eye-witness account regarding the involvement of the 2025:JHHC:10850

Tractor, in question and therefore the plea that it was not involved in the accident is not sustainable.

5. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the issue of jurisdiction should have been raised as a preliminary issue at the inception and at this stage award of compensation cannot be set aside on this technical plea. [See (2016)3 SCC 43]

6. It is argued by the counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that under Section 64(v)(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the risk of the vehicle is covered from the date when the premium is paid and unless and until the premium is received, the risk of any vehicle is not covered. So far as the explanation to Section 64(v)(b)(2) of the Act, 1938 is concerned, only two exceptions have been made i.e. when the premium amount has already been dispatched by the postal money order or through the cheque and in that circumstances, the risk coverage starts from the date when the amount has been dispatched by the post money-order.

7. It is contended that in the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the amount was ever dispatched by any registered post. The only document which is being relied has not been formerly proved, but the same has been marked Z for identification. The letter has been shown to be issued by the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Sisai, stating therein, that a demand-draft for a sum of Rs.5569/- was drawn in favour of the Insurance Company for payment of premium of the Tractor bearing Registration No. JH 07A- 4413 and its trailor bearing Registration No.4414 which was financed by the Bank and hypothecated to it. The reference is made to the RC book which is also a document brought on record from which it will be evident that the vehicle was registered on 08.04.2003 and registration would have been made only after taking the insurance of the vehicle from the said date, meaning thereby, the insurance had expired way back on 07.04.2004 and, therefore, there was a gap of about six month before the date of accident, then the premium amount was not paid and only after the accident took place, an ante-dated document has been used to avoid liability by the owner and with a view to shift it to the insurance company.

8. It is difficult to concede the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent- Insurance Company that Explanation to Section 64(v)(b) 2025:JHHC:10850

of the Insurance Act will be applicable only if it is dispatched by postal mode of communication. If the cheque/money order or bank draft has ben drawn in favour of the Insurance Company and duly dispatched, the same will be effective from the date of dispatch. There is difference between the cheque and a draft inasmuch as the cheque is cleared only on representation before the bank and then the amount is debited from the account of the drawer of the cheque, but in case of draft, the amount is beforehand debited from the account and then draft is made. The vey fact that the draft was drawn on the date of accident i.e. 12.10.2004 before the accident took place goes to show that there was no fault on the part of the appellant/ owner of the vehicle. Further, the tractor was hypothecated with the bank and it was for the bank to have paid the premium for renewal of the insurance policy. The very fact that the policy of insurance was purchased on 14.10.2004 suggests that the draft was duly dispatched on 12.10.2004 as per the letter issued.

9. In this view of the matter, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & Ors. (Supreme Court Reports (1997) Supp. 6 SCR), it shall be the Insurance Company which will be liable to pay the compensation. The impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal so far as it has fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle, is set aside. Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/