[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Rudhima Raj Daughter Of Late Samridh ... on 10 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:37156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 126 of 2015
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Pipri, P.O. P.S. &
Town Turra, District-Sonbhadra U.P.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Rudhima Raj daughter of Late Samridh Sagar Sharma
2. Nashvi Raj daughter of Late Samridh Sagar Sharma
3. Rahul Kumar son of Late Samridh Sagar Sharma
All residents of Village & P.O. Ray (Swaminagar) P.S. Khelari District-Ranchi
4. Name of Hazi Answar Ali has wrongly been mentioned he is not the claimant
nor he was arrayed as party in Claim Application
5. Kanhaiya Chaubey son of P.N. Chaubey resident of house No. H/ 25
Hindalco Colony, P.O. P.S. & Town Renukoot District- Sonbhadra (U.P.)
... .... Respondents
With
M. A. No. 123 of 2015
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Pipri, P.O. P.S. &
Town Turra, District-Sonbhadra U.P.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Nalin Raj Rawat son of Late Laxman Prasad Rawat
All residents of Village & P.O. Ray(Swaminagar) P.S. Khelari District-Ranchi
2. Kanhaiya Chaubey son of P.N. Chaubey resident of house No. H/ 25 Hindalco
Colony, P.O. P.S. & Town Renukoot District- Sonbhadra (U.P.)
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants :Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
------
Order No. 13 / Dated : 10.12.2025.
I.A. No. 4819 of 2021 & I.A. No. 2409 of 2025
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not want to press both
the aforesaid interlocutory applications.
Accordingly, both the I.A. No. 4819 of 2021 & I.A. No. 2409 of 2025
stands dismissed as not pressed.
M. A. No. 126 of 2015 & M. A. No. 123 of 2015
1. The Insurance-Company is in appeal against the common judgment and
separate award of compensation passed in Compensation Case No. 69 of
2025:JHHC:37156
2006 and Compensation Case No. 138 of 2006 arising out of the accident
which took place on 13.02.2006 in which the deceased Samridih Sagar
Sharma was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no. JH01M-2780 with
pillion rider Nalin Raj (injured) met with an accident involving a truck
bearing registration no. UP-64C-0160.
2. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that accident took place due to rash
and negligence driving by the driver of the truck (Lakhan Singh) and
awarded compensation in favour of the claimants for the death of Samridih
Sagar Sharma and permanent disability of Nalin Raj in the motor vehicle
accident fixing liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. The appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the during enquiry before
the Tribunal, the Insurance-Company had led evidence to establish that the
driving licence produced on behalf of the driver was forged and fabricated
and further no permit was produced by the owner of the vehicle. In the
absence of driving licence and valid permit for plying a commercial vehicle
amounted to fundamental breach of the insurance policy in terms of Section
149 (2) of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal in para-17 of the judgment has
recorded a finding that the accident was the result of negligence of driver of
the truck, but it refrained from giving any finding regarding validity of the
driving licence and directed the Insurance-Company to approach a
competent Civil Court for a declaration that DL of the driver of the offending
vehicle was forged.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that law is
settled on the point that once the Insurance-Company pleads defence of
breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, it has a right to lead
evidence with regard to it and this issue has to be decided by the Tribunal,
and the Insurance-Company cannot be directed driven to any other Court for
deciding this issue. In this case Ext-A is the Investigation Report, Ext-B is
the DTO Report which goes to show that the driving licence no. 13414/
sonbhadra/91 was not issued in the name of Lakhan Singh, rather it was
issued in the name of S.K. Mourya.
5. In this case, notices were earlier issued on the respondents, but the owner of
the vehicle has not appeared, consequently, appeal is being heard ex-parte
against the owner of the vehicle.
6. I find force in the argument advanced on the behalf of the Insurance-
2025:JHHC:37156
Company that it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to have decided
the issue of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as there was
pleading and evidence to that effect. On the basis of the Ext.-A & B, it can
be safely inferred that the licence of Lakhan Singh produced before the Court
was forged and fabricated as the issuing authority had certified that the same
was issued in the name of S.K. Mourya. Furthermore, neither the owner of
the vehicle appears nor permit of the truck was produced, therefore, in view
of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (Amrit Paul Singh v.
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558). It can be held
that the vehicle was not having a valid permit which resulted in fundamental
breach of the insurance policy so far as the claim for right of recovery for
the breach of insurance policy against the owner is concerned.
7. The second plea that has been taken in M.A. No. 126 of 2015 is the quantum
of compensation. It is contended that the deceased Samridh Sagar Sharma
was aged 46 years as per the finding of the learned Tribunal at the time of
accident. Ext. X/5 is the xerox copy of the matriculation certificate and
therefore, the testimony of the claimants that the deceased was 43 years at the
time of accident and is excluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Act.
8. Taking 46 years age of the deceased at the time of accident, the income as
assessed by the Tribunal Rs.8000/- per month, applicable multiplier of 13,
loss of dependency by 1/4th as personal and living expense of the deceased as
claimants are four in number and 25% future prospect, the final compensation
of amount will work out as under: -
Annual Income = Rs.8000/- X 12 Rs.96,000/-
Future Prospect Rs.96,000/- Rs. 24000 /-
X 25%
After adding annual income and Rs. 96,000 + Rs.24000 =Rs. 1,20,000 /-
future prospect
Deduction of 1/4th personal and living Rs.9000/-
expense
Multiplier of 13 taking the age of the Rs. 11,70,000/-
deceased to be 46
Conventional Head Rs.77,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 12,47,000 /-
9. Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make payment
of Rs. 12,47,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
application, within a month of the order, which shall be disbursed to the
2025:JHHC:37156
claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it.
10.So far as the award of compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 138
of 2006 is concerned, the quantum is not under challenge and only the rate of
interest 9% is under challenge. Therefore, the awarded amount will be with
interest at rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application,
Both the Miscellaneous Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Statutory amount be remitted to the learned Tribunal for
disbursement to the claimants.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
12.12.2025
