Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Mahto vs M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:11592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 366 of 2023
Santosh Kumar Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Dharam Nath
Mahto, resident of Village- Marangmarcha, Sandhi, P.O. Chitarpur, P.S.
Chitarpur, District- Ramgarh ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented through
Divisional Manager, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City,
District- Bokaro
2. Ram Lagan Mahto, son of Late Maheshwar Mahato
3. Pako Devi, wife of Ram Lagan Mahato
4. Ambika Kumari, daughter of Ram Lagan Mahato
All residents of Telidih Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
-----
06/17.04.2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-owner cum
driver of the alleged vehicle, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1-insurance company and Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4-claimants.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated
13.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge-V-cum-Presiding Officer,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No.133
of 2018.
3. Larned counsel for the appellant-owner cum driver of the vehicle
submits that I.A. No.10648 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay of
505 days in preferring the present miscellaneous appeal. He submits that the
delay has occurred due to illness of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company submits
that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was ill as no
2025:JHHC:11592
document to that effect has been annexed. He further submits that before
the learned Tribunal, notice has already been effected upon the appellant and
in spite of that, he has not appeared. He submits that the driving license of
the driver cum owner of the alleged vehicle was not there for driving the
commercial vehicle and that finding is also there against the appellant herein
and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to grant
compensation in favour of the claimants and directed the insurance company
to satisfy the same and recover that amount from the owner of the vehicle.
He submits that in light of the direction of the learned Tribunal, the insurance
company has already satisfied the award and recovery proceeding has been
filed for recovery of the amount.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4-claimants submits that in
light of the award, the claimants have received the amount paid by the
insurance company.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court finds that the learned Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the judgment and
award has gone through the evidence as well as Ext.A/1, which was the report
of the investigator and found that the driving license of the appellant herein
issued by the D.T.O. office, Lohardaga, which was marked as Ext.-A, was not
valid and effective at the time of accident and it was valid from 07.10.2013 to
06.10.2016 only, whereas, the accident took place on 27.09.2018. Thus, it is
an admitted position that there is violation of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed
the judgment and award and right of recovery was provided to the insurance
company. There is no illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal.
2025:JHHC:11592
7. In course of the argument, learned counsel for the insurance company
has produced the carbon copy of the order dated 19.08.2019 and submits
that notice has been effected upon the appellant before the learned Tribunal
and track report was also on the record, which was considered by the learned
Tribunal and in view of that, ex-parte proceeding has been proceeded against
the appellant herein.
8. The carbon copy of the order dated 19.08.2019 is taken on record.
9. In view of the above facts, there is nothing on merit also and, as such,
this appeal is dismissed.
10. Since on merit, the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Court,
consequently, I.A. No.10648 of 2024 filed for condonation of delay of 505
days in preferring this miscellaneous appeal, wherein, proper document with
regard to illness is also produced is also dismissed.
11. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted back
to the learned Tribunal where the recovery proceeding is pending.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
