Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Mst. Kamal Mukhi Devi Wife Of Late Binod ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:10851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.210 of 2016
------
National Insurance Company Limited, Deoghar Branch through Assistant
Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, office at Kachahri Road, beside Gopal
Complex, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Mst. Kamal Mukhi Devi wife of Late Binod Lal Deo
2. Amarnath Prasad son of Late Binod Lal Deo
3. Narendra Prasad Late Binod Lal Deo
4. Gauri Devi daughter of Late Binod Lal Deo
All residents of Sonki, P.O. and P.S. Sadar Darbhanga, District Darbhanga
(Bihar) at present residing at Kumudini Ghose Road, Barmasia, P.O. and
P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)
5. Binod Kumar Yadav son of Arjun Pd. Yadav, resident of Village Kothiya,
P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)
6(a) Prashant Kumar son of Late Dhanajay Mishra resident of Village
Banoga, P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)
7. Baldeo Das son of Ramu Das resident of Bara Sangra, P.O. and P.S.
Madhupur, District Deoghar
8. New India Insurance Company Ltd., Deoghar Branch, Court Road, P.O.
and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1-4: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6(a): Mr. Mohan Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent No.8 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
------
Order No.14 / Dated : 08.04.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in Claim Case No.10 of 2003 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act by which liability of compensation has been fixed on the
Insurance Company.
2. The facts are not in dispute.
3. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver
was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and the
offending vehicle which was a tractor with trailer loaded with sand, was
plying as a commercial vehicle without any valid permit. In support of the
contention, it is submitted that the Insurance Company examined his
2025:JHHC:10851
Surveyor- Kishore Kumar Jha as opposite party witness no.1, who has
proved the surveyor report as Exhibit A and Exhibit B which was issued by
the D.T.O., Giridih.
4. As per the report of the D.T.O., Giridih, the driving license which
was issued, was fake, but it was renewed w.e.f. 29.03.2001 to 28.03.2004 by
D.T.O., Deoghar.
5. It is further argued that the owner appeared in this case, but permit
of the vehicle was not produced. Insurance Company contested the claim
case inter alia on the ground of breach of condition of the insurance policy as
no permit was issued. Since the documents regarding permit has not been
adduced therefore, it can be inferred that it was being plied without valid
permit, which amounted to the breach of terms under Section 149 of the
Motor Vehicle Act. It has also been pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that
the driver was engaged to drive the offending vehicle without verification of
the license. In this view of the matter, it was incumbent on the part of the
learned Tribunal to have given right of recovery to the Insurance Company.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey on
behalf of respondent no.6(a)-owner of vehicle that the original owner of the
vehicle died during course of trial and his son has been substituted at the
time of appeal as respondent no.6(a). The privity to contract will apply as
substituted son was not a party and therefore, he will not be bound by the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle was validly
insured and as per the Exhibit B, the driver was having a valid driving
license at the time of accident.
7. The argument that the original driving license was fake, is not
tenable otherwise it could not have been renewed by the D.T.O., Deoghar. It
is argued by the learned counsel that the accident took place immediately
after the vehicle was taken from the show room and formal registration
number was also not issued by the registering authority.
8. The accident admittedly took place on 04.01.2003, whereas
registration fee was deposited on 06.01.2003 and was registered and
registration number was issued on 04.02.2003, therefore, in this short span of
time, they had no opportunity to take permit of the vehicle. Before drawing
2025:JHHC:10851
a finding of fundamental breach of the terms and condition of the policy of
insurance in terms of Section 149 of the M.V. Act, there should be some
actionable evidence to suggest that there were laches on the part of the
owner before saddling him with liability to pay the compensation amount.
Even otherwise, the permit could not have been obtained in the short span
of time. In the present case, since the accident took place immediately after
the vehicle was taken from the show room, therefore the breach of policy of
insurance cannot be held for using the motor vehicle without a valid permit.
Under the circumstance, the Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed.
Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to
the claimants for adjustment to the final compensation amount.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
