Jharkhand High Court
Murli Manohar Prasad vs Branch Manager on 9 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:11198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 578 of 2016
1.Murli Manohar Prasad, S/o Sri Ram Lakhan Sahu, R/o Sisai Road,
P.O. & P.S. & District- Gumla.
2.Gulzar Khan, S/o Md. Firoz Khan, R/o Gudari Chowk, P.O. & P.S.
Chutiya, District- Ranchi. .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Court Compound,
Circular Road, P.O. Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali, District- Dhanbad.
2.Belo Minz, S/o Gondra Oraon, R/o Village- Pugu Khopatoli, P.O. &
P.S. & District- Gumla.
. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Resp.(s) No.2 : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Ins. Comp. : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
......
20/ 09.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The appellants being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are
in appeal, against the judgment and Award of compensation dated
05.08.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge- cum- MACT,
Gumla, in M.A.C. Case No.4/ 2009 by which the liability to pay
compensation has been fixed on them under Section 166 of the M. V.
Act.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and not under-challenge that
on 12.03.2006, that the informant along with other persons were
travelling in Bus bearing Registration No.BR 41P -2904 which met with
an accident in which the claimant- Belo Minz sustained permanent
disability in the said accident.
3. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that
the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of Respondent
No.1 [The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] at the relevant time of accident
and the liability has been saddled on the appellant No.1 only on the
ground that the vehicle was not having a permit for contract carriage,
which amounted to statutory breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is not in dispute that the
bus was plying under permit. Liability was saddled on the owner of the
vehicle for the reason that the bus was taken on hire, for which it had
no requisite permit.
2025:JHHC:11198
5. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the pleading of the Insurance
Company was bereft of averment that vehicle had been taken on
contract carriage for which it had no valid permit. No issue was framed
on it and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that vehicle was
taken on hire on a contract carriage for carrying the Barat- party from
Village- Pugu Khopatoli to Koinara Tongritoli.
6. Specific plea was taken on behalf of the Respondent- Insurance
Company, regarding invalidity of the driving licence and, not that the
vehicle was taken on contract stage carriage for which it was having
no valid permit.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has defended the
impugned order/ judgment, in which right of recovery has been given
to the Insurance Company. It is submitted that in Para-8 of the written
statement, it has been specifically pleaded that there was statutory
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as
contemplated under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. It has come in
investigation and in charge-sheet which (Ext.2), that the vehicle was
not being plied under the Route permit, but was on way from Pugu
Khopatoli to Koinara Tongritoli. It has also come in evidence that the
victim was travelling as a member of Barat- party at the time of
accident.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the
sides and the materials on record, it is evident that the vehicle, in
question was having a valid permit and the same was adduced into
evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that the vehicle was taken
on contract carriage. Learned Tribunal misdirected itself to record a
finding that it was taken on contract carriage only because some of the
passengers were proceeding as Barat-party(s). Merely because some
of the passengers of the bus were members of the barat party does
not perforce lead to the conclusion that the entire bus was hired. There
is specific pleading regarding breach of terms and conditions of the
Insurance policy on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not
having the valid driving licence at the time of accident. However, such
a plea is not taken with respect to valid permit of the bus. There is no
specific denial as far as the pleadings are concerned and an evasive
denials will amount to admission in terms of Order VIII Rule 3 CPC. So
far as Ext.2 is concerned, it is certified copy of the charge-sheet in the
2025:JHHC:11198
connected Police case, which is not a substantive piece of evidence
and it cannot be the basis to draw any inference regarding the fact in
issue.
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to absence of any valid permit
and consequent breach of policy of insurance is perverse, as much as
it is not supported by any pleading or evidence and is accordingly not
sustainable and is set aside.
10. As such, the impugned judgment of Award and compensation so
far as the right to recovery given to the Insurance Company against
the Appellants is concerned is set aside. Insurance Company shall be
liable to pay the compensation, which is directed to pay the same
within a month of this order.
Misc. Appeal is allowed.
Pending, I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
11. The statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the
instant Misc. Appeal be sent to the concerned Tribunal so as to
disburse /adjust to the appellant/ owner of the vehicle.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
