Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Karamanti Devi on 24 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 185 of 2016
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office
No.1, Ashok Automobiles Building, Main Road, Ranchi.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Karamanti Devi, W/o Late Birendra Mahto
2.Satish Mahto, S/o Late Birendra Mahto
3.Sandip Mahto, S/o Late Birendra Mahto
4.Indu Kumari, D/o Late Birendra Mahto
5.Rohini Devi, W/o Late Shiv Shankar Mahto
All residents of Village- Birhu, P.S. Khunti, District- Khunti.
6.Jeeta Kachhap, S/o Mahadeo Kachhap Group Leader Meso Bus, R/o
Village Dungri, P.O. Tupudana, P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
.. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No.6 : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
Ms. Priyasha Priyadarshani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC.I
Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka., AC to SC.I
For the claimant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Mahto, Advocate
......
24/ 24.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The appellant- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the
judgment of Award dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned Presiding
Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in
Compensation Case No.265 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, a
compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- has been awarded along with interest
@7% per annum from the date of admission till its realization and the
liability has been fixed upon the appellant- Insurance Company to pay
the compensation amount.
2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute and the issue in appeal
is about the liability to pay the compensation which has been fastened
upon the appellant- Insurance Company.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance
Company that, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-
01C- 4629 was under the insurance cover of the appellant- Insurance
Company, which was purchased by the State Government through
the Welfare Commissioner.
4. It is a passenger carrying vehicle and was registered in the name of
the ten co-owners, namely, Jeeta Kachhap, Jitu Kachhap, Soma
Oraon, Mahesh Oraon, Pradip Sunil Toppo, Jagendra kachhap, Smt.
Pushpa Gari, Asha Lakra, Champu Kachhap and Sarika Kachhap. As
a matter of fact, this vehicle was handed-over to the group, who were
members of the scheduled tribes for its operation under the welfare
scheme.
5. The claim case was filed, without impleading any other co-owners,
therefore, the case was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the
necessary party(s).
6. Vide order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, Tribal Welfare Commissioner was impleaded as Respondent
No.7 and vide order dated 08.01.2024, the State of Jharkhand was
deleted as a party and a rejoinder affidavit was filed whereby from
Para-6, it appears that the Tribal Welfare Commissioner who was a
party and the registered owner of the said vehicle.
7. From the Rejoinder/affidavit dated 03.04.2023 sworn on behalf of the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it appears that, registered owner of
the vehicle was Tribal Welfare Commissioner which was handed-over
to the Group of Tribal for operation of the said vehicle. Further, even
the insurance policy shows the names of the owner to be Tribal
Welfare Commissioner. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any
two views that the vehicle was owned by any other person(s)/ group.
8. The main contention on behalf of the Insurance Company is that said
vehicle was being plied without any valid permit which constituted the
breach of policy of insurance in terms of the Section 149(2) of the
M.V. Act and, therefore, the appellant - Insurance Company may be
permitted to get right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle, i.e.
Tribal Welfare Commissioner.
9. There is merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the learned
counsel on behalf of Respondent No.7 that being the owner of the
vehicle, was a necessary party in the claim case, and having been not
impleaded, has been deprived of an opportunity to plead and lead
evidence in the case. However, this is a case for compensation under
Section 166 of the MV Act, wherein the accident took place on
09.12.2006 and therefore about two decades it will not be for the ends
of justice to remand the case at this stage.
10. Respondent No.7 is therefore given an opportunity to file its pleading
supported by affidavit within four weeks of this order and shall be at
liberty to lead evidence in the case.
11. Let the case be listed on 25th March 2025.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
