Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumitra Devi on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 81 of 2016
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad, Divisional Office, B. P.
Agarwalla Building, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad.
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Sumitra Devi, W/o Late Rushu Mahto @ Rash Bihari Mahato
2.Baldeo Mahto, S/o Jyoti Lal Mahto
3.Smt. Rabni Devi, W/o Baldeo Mahto
All three residents of Village & P.O. Tantri, P.S. Topchanchi, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4.Sitaram Dubey, S/o Late Atul Chandra Dubey, Village Kalhajhar,
Tantri, P.O. Tantri, P.S. Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad.
.. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Alok Lal & Mr. Santosh Kr, Advs.
For the Resp. 4 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate
......
15/ 27.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The appellant- National Insurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the
judgment and Award of compensation dated 23.04.2015 passed by
learned District Judge XIII- cum- P.O., MACT, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.)
Claim Case No.180 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the liability to pay
the compensation amount has been fastened upon the appellant-
Insurance Company.
2. As per the case of the claimant(s), the deceased (Rushu Mahto @ Rash
Bihari Mahto) was working as a Labour on Tractor bearing Registration
No. JH09K 6395 with Trailer having Registration No.JH-09K 6394 which
met with an accident by rash and negligent driving by its driver. As a
result, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died in the
accident.
3. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle in which
the deceased sustained fatal injury. It also held that the driver of the
vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company
that the original Driving licence of the driver was not produced and
consequently the same could not be verified from the DTO Office where
the relevant page had got torn. It was incumbent on the part of the owner
of the vehicle to produce the permit and the driving licence of the vehicle,
failing to do so, amounted the breach of the terms of the insurance policy.
5. It is further argued that it was not permissible for a goods carrying vehicle
like Tractor to be carrying passenger and the deceased was travelling as
a gratuitous passenger on it and, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down
by the Apex Court in the case reported in 2005 (12) SCC 243 and AIR
2008 SC 2252, the appellant- Insurance Company will not be liable to pay
any compensation. The owner had appeared, but has not filed the written
statement.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-owner has defended the
impugned judgment of Award and submits that learned Tribunal has
recorded a finding of fact that the photocopy of the Driving Licence which
was produced by the claimant(s) was valid and effective at the time of
accident.
7. Since the appellant- Insurance Company failed to lead any contrary
evidence regarding invalidity of the Driving Licence at the time of time of
accident, I find no infirmity in the finding that the driver was having any
valid and effective driving licence.
8. With regard to the second plea raised in this Misc. appeal that deceased
was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and therefore there was a
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is significant to
note that no issue was framed by the learned Tribunal in this regard.
However, a finding has been recorded in para-8 of the impugned
judgment, that the accident took place when the tractor along with trailer
met with an accident.
9. It is definite case of the claimant(s) that the deceased was travelling as a
labour in the said vehicle which has not been controverted by leading any
evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company. In this view of the matter,
it cannot be said that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous
passenger on the tractor, since he was working as a labour. Under the
circumstance the authority relied upon by the appellant- Insurance
Company will not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the
case.
10. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order/ judgment of
Award and thus, Misc. appeal stands dismissed.
11. Appellant- Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation
amount within a month of the order, which shall be disbursed to the
claimants on terms fixed by it within two weeks thereafter.
12. Statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the instant
Misc. Appeal shall be sent to the learned Tribunal so as to disburse/
adjust to the claimant(s).
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
