Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sarthi Mahatain on 25 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 493 of 2015
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Verma Mansion, Bank More, Jharia Branch
through The Divisional Manager, B.P. Agarwalla Building, P.O. & P.S, Dhansar,
District- Dhnabad.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Sarthi Mahatain, W/o Banshidhar Mahto
2. Banshidhar Mahto, S/o Late Dukhan Mahto
Both residents of Village & P.O. Dharjori P.S. Bhuli Nagar, District-Dhanbad
3. Sushanto Kumar Kundu, S/o M.N. Kundu residing at 87-A, Nunudih
Sudamdih, P.O. & P.S. Patherdih, District-Dhanbad (Owner of Truck)
... .... Respondents
With
M.A. No. 495 of 2015
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Verma, Mansion, Bank More, Jharia Branch
through The Divisional Manager, B.P. Agarwalla Building, P.O. & P.S, Dhansar,
District- Dhnabad.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Sarthi Mahatain, W/o Banshidhar Mahto
2. Banshidhar Mahto, S/o Late Dukhan Mahto
Both residents of Village & P.O. Dharjori P.S. Bhuli Nagar, District-
Dhanbad
3. Sushanto Kumar Kundu, S/o M.N. Kundu residing at 87-A, Nunudih
Sudamdih, P.O. & P.S. Patherdih, District-Dhanbad (Owner of Truck)
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate
------
Order No. 15 / Dated : 25.02.2025.
Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company in I.A. No.
1758 of 2025, which has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4/11 & 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
substituting the heirs and descendants of respondent no. 1 and 2, who died
during the pendency of this appeal on 11.08.2021 and 29.10.2020 respectively.
It is submitted that the same was not within their knowledge and only
after filing of the informatory petition, this instant petition is filed.
Considering the grounds taken in the aforesaid interlocutory application,
the prayer made for substitution is allowed and legal heirs as detailed in para
5 are directed to be substituted in place of respondent no. 1 and 2 by the office.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1758 of 2025 stands disposed of.
Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company in I.A. No.
1757 of 2025, which has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4/11 & 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
substituting the heirs and descendants of respondent no. 1 and 2, who died
during the pendency of this appeal on 11.08.2021 and 29.10.2020 respectively.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the same was not within the
knowledge and only after filing of the informatory petition, this instant petition
is filed.
Considering the ground taken in the aforesaid interlocutory application,
the prayer made for substitution is allowed and legal heirs as detailed in para
4 are directed to be substituted in place of respondent no. 1 and 2 by the office.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1757 of 2025 stands disposed of.
M.A. No. 493 of 2015 & M.A. No. 495 of 2015
1. Both these appeals against the judgment and award of compensation
arising out of the same accident, which took place on 22.05.2013 in which
deceased [Nepal Mahato and his wife Jhunia Devi] who were returning to his
house by his motor-cycle bearing registration no. JH-10H-5206 was hit by a
Truck bearing Registration No.JH10D 0740. As per the case of the claimant,
the truck was driven rashly and negligently.
2. Two separate claim cases were filed by the dependents of the deceased
[Nepal Mahato and Jhunia Devi] in which learned tribunal has separately
awarded compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act in Title (M.V.) Suit
No.141 of 2013 and in Title (M.V.) Suit No.142 of 2013.
3. Learned tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver Tej Narayan,
driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of accident and, therefore, on account of breach of terms
and conditions of insurance policy, the Insurance Company was directed to
pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company
in M.A. No. 493 of 2015 that learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the
driver was not having a valid driving licence, but despite this, liability has been
saddled on the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount and then
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on account of the breach of
terms and conditions of insurance policy. Reliance is placed in this regard on
Balu Krishna Chavan Vs. The Relaince General Insurance Company Ltd.
& Ors, reported in 2022 LIveLaw (SC) 932 wherein it has been held that if
the insurance company is not held liable, generally it should not be directed
to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is further argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance
Company in M.A. No. 495 of 2015 [arising out Title (M.V.) Suit No.142 of
2013] and in M.A. No. 493 of 2015 [arising out Title (M.V.) Suit No.141 of
2013] that in both these cases claimants are father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the deceased, Jhunia Devi. They have already been awarded
compensation by the learned Tribunal for the death of their son in Title (M.V.)
Suit No.141 of 2013.
6. It is contended that there is no material to show that they were
dependents of their daughter-in-law, Jhunia Devi and therefore, unless they
were held to be dependents, compensation cannot be awarded for the death
of their daughter-in-law.
7. Since the claimants would have been only entitled to the loss of estate
as Rs.15,000/- in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680.
8. There is a long line of judicial precedents that the third party claim for
compensation cannot be defeated only for the reason that there was breach
in terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The very object of the Motor
Vehicle Act is to provide succor and sustenance to the bereaved family
without any undue delay. If the offending vehicle is not insured, the insurance
company is not liable to indemnify the insured. However, if the vehicle is
insured and there is breach of the policy of insurance, it cannot be absolved
of the liability to pay compensation. Facts of the present Case are different
from the authority relied upon. The present Case is not that of a gratuitous
passenger, rather both the deceased persons died while they were riding on
a motorcycle which met with accident with the offending vehicle. Therefore,
the plea that insurance company was not liable to pay at the first instance, is
not sustainable. [ see United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3
SCC 338; 2009 (3) JCR 94 (SC) New India Assurance Company Vrs.
Sadanand Mukhi, Shivaraj v. Rajendra, (2018) 10 SCC 432]
9. The second line of argument advanced on behalf the Insurance
Company that claimants being father-in-law and mother-in-law were not the
dependent of the deceased Jhunia Devi who was their daughter-in-law is
equally untenable. Such a contention is not in tune with realities of life. It has
been observed in Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2022) 14 SCC 712 that it is not uncommon in Indian society for the
mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and
be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Further, in
Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai
Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 at page 277 it has been held that "Legal
representative" as defined in Civil Procedure Code, means a person who in
law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person
who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or
is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves
on the death of the party so suing or sued. The definition is inclusive in
character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only instead it
stipulates a person who may or may not be heir, competent to inherit the
property of the deceased but he should represent the estate of the deceased
person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even
without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate
of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal
representative". If there are many heirs, those in possession bona fide,
without there being any fraud or collusion, are also entitled to represent the
estate of the deceased.
10. Under the circumstance the plea raised in M.A. No. 495 of 2015, that the
claimants being the mother-in-law and father-in-law, were not the legal heirs
of the deceased Jhunia Devi is unsustainable and is accordingly dismissed.
Similar contention was rejected in, Managing Director v. T. Suryanarayana,
2013 SCC OnLine Kar 8081.
For the reasons discussed above both the Miscellaneous Appeals
stands dismissed.
Statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the instant
Misc. Appeal be remitted to the Tribunal to be disbursed along with
compensation to the claimant within a month of this order.
Pending I.A (s)., If any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/Sandeep -
