Jharkhand High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Taramati Wife Of Late Mahendra Ram on 28 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.162 of 2016
------
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, Dhanbad Divisional Office
at B.P. Agarwala Building, P.S. & P.O. Dhansar District Dhanbad
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Taramati wife of Late Mahendra Ram
2. Bhola Ram son of Late Mahendra Ram
3. Priti Kumari daughter of Late Mahendra Ram
4. Neha Kumari daughter of Late Mahendra Ram
5. Bikki Ram son of Late Mahendra Ram
6. Lilo Rabidas son of Late Barhan Ram
All residing at Pokharia, P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribagh at
present residing at C/o Bhagirath Das at Kaisalpur, P.S. & P.O. Katras,
District Dhanbad
Respondent Nos. 2 - 5 are minors and are being represented through their
mother being natural guardian as their next friend
7. Dharamdeo Kumar son of Budhan Sao resident of Village Bendgi, P.O.
Rasoiya, Dhamna, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1-6 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate
------
Order No.28 / Dated : 28.02.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 293 of 2011 whereby and
whereunder compensation has been awarded under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act fixing the liability to pay the amount on it.
2. The facts are not much in dispute and the quantum of
compensation awarded is not under challenge.
3. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that there was
breach of term and condition of the Insurance policy, since offending
insured vehicle was plying on road without Certificate of Registration in
violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
4. It is contended that the said accident took place on 14.06.2005 and
Exhibit X which has been brought on record on behalf of claimant, will go to
show that registration of vehicle was done on 02.09.2005. It has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 324 that the registration of
vehicles is mandatory and when the accident took place after expiry of
documentary registration of vehicle, it was a fundamental breach of the
policy of insurance.
5. I find merit in the argument on behalf of owner of vehicle that this
issue was never raised in the pleadings on behalf of Insurance Company and
consequently, no issue was framed with regard to the registration of the
offending vehicle. Further, owner of the vehicle had appeared as witness
and was examined as opposite party no.1, wherein it has been stated by him
in his examination-in-chief on affidavit that the vehicle in question was
insured for the period 22.03.2005 to 21.03.2006. This witness was cross-
examined by the claimant, but the Insurance Company declined to cross-
examine this witness and not a single question was put on his behalf. It is
further argued that this is a case with regard to third party liability and the
authority relied upon by the Insurance Company is with regard to own
damage of the vehicle and therefore, will not directly apply in the present
case. Further, no police case was registered for plying vehicle without any
valid registration. Normally the interest of the person in the vehicle is not
insured, unless the same is registered.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order.
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
