United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Srikant Choubey
2025 Latest Caselaw 7460 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Srikant Choubey on 3 December, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                       2025:JHHC:36237




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            M. A. No. 283 of 2015

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at Chennai, through its
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Lalji Hirji Road,
P.S.-Kotwali, P.O.-Head Post Office, Ranchi ....      ....         Appellant
                    Versus
1. Sri Srikant Choubey, S/o Parsu Ram Choubey
2. Mrs. Srimati Devi, W/o Srikant Choubey, both presently residing at Sheo
Shakti Nagar, Kokar, P.O. & P.S.-Kokar, Dist.-Ranchi
3. Shiva Ji Ram, S/o Ramashish Ram, R/o 1, Pathuria Ghat Street Kolkata,
P.O.-G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S.-Lal Bazar, permanent address at Village-
Sakarwara, P.S.-Gai Ghat, Muzaffarpur, Dist.-Muzaffarpur, Bihar
4. Kusum Devi, W/o Late Satyendra Choubey @ Pintu, Village-Puraina
(Uraina), P.S.-Barhaiya, Dist.-Saran, Bihar         ....  .... Respondents
                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate

-----

Oral Order 16 / Dated : 03.12.2025

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act in Compensation Case No. 05/2007 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, an award of Rs.7,10,000/- with interest has been made in favour of the claimants, fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount.

2. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle being Truck bearing Registration No. WB 15-9969 was not insured by the Insurance Company and the insurance certificate bearing Policy No. 4538330 was allegedly forged and fabricated.

3. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that Issue No. 5 was framed with regard to the validity of insurance policy and the learned Tribunal recorded the finding at paragraph-14 that the Insurance Company has failed to adduce into evidence any document to show that the said policy was forged and fabricated.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that OPW 1 had deposed that the policy was fake and not issued by the Insurance Company.

2025:JHHC:36237

5. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company, this Court is not impressed by the argument as no documentary evidence has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company to show that it was a fake and fabricated document of insurance. Once the copy of the insurance policy (Ext.6) has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the claimants showing that the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover at the relevant time of accident, onus was on the Insurance Company to rebut the said evidence by leading any documentary evidence on record.

6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the finding made by the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company had failed to prove its defence that the said policy was fake and forged. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

This Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of.

Statutory amount deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company to be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants against the final compensation amount.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 04.12.2025