Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Bharti Devi on 29 January, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 387 of 2016
The New India Assurance Company Limited, 3rd floor, Red Cross Building,
North Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna, State- Bihar- 800001, through its
Divisional Office No. 1, P.P. Compound, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Chutia, District
Ranchi.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Bharti Devi, W/o Paritosh Ojha & Mother of Late Bikash Kumar Ojha
2. Rupesh Kumar Ojha, S/o Sri Paritosh Ojha.
Both resident of Chasnalla Ojha Basti, P.O. Chasnalla, P.S. Patherdih,
District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
3. Rajeev Kumar, S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o Sare, P.O. Sare, P.S. Asthawan,
District- Nalanda, (Bihar)
4. Dipak Kundu, S/o S. K. Kundu, R/o Pathardih (Nunudih), P.O. Mohan
Bazar, P.S. Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
5. Sikandar Khan, S/o Faiz Khan, R/o Naya Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Bank More,
District-Dhanbad.
6. Md. Istekhar Ansari, S/o Atimul Ansari, R/o Patherdih Loco Bazar,
Railway Colony, P.O. Patherdih, P.S. Jorapokhar, District-Dbhanbad.
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1& 2 : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 6 Mr. Pravin Kr. Rana, Advocate
------
Order No. 16 / Dated : 29.01.2025.
1. The insurance company is in appeal against the award of
compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in
Title (M.V.) Suit No. 235 of 2008 by which liability to pay compensation of
Rs.5,28,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been fixed on the
insurance company.
2. As per the case of the claimants, Bikash Kumar Ojha died in a motor
vehicle accident when his Ambassador Car was dashed with the truck in
rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. BR-53-6003.
The F.IR. was lodged against the driver of the truck and the learned
Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the truck.
3. The owner, driver of the truck and the insurer were impleaded as party
by the claimants.
4. The insurance was not denied by the insurance company, however, the
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was pleaded.
Learned Tribunal framed issue no. 6 as under: -
Whether the Car No. BR-20D-9118 and Truck No. BR-53-6003 had
a valid and effective permit at the time of accident?
5. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that in view of the verification
report (Ext. B), the offending truck was not having a valid route permit at
the time of accident. However, considering the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in (2004) ACJ 2094 (SC) wherein liability was fixed on
the insurance company.
6. The main grievance of the appellant is that despite the recording of
finding of the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, right
to recovery has not been given against the owner of the vehicle
(Respondent No. 3).
7. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the ex-
parte proceeding was drawn against the owner of the vehicle who was
impleaded as defendant no. 1.
8. In the appeal before the Court, notice was validly served, but owner
at no point of time appearing before the Court. Onus was on the owner
of the truck to led evidence regarding valid route permit of the vehicle.
9. Having failed to do so and considering the verification report (Ext. B)
from which it appears that the truck was not having a valid route permit,
this Court is of the view that insurance company-appellant has proved the
breach of terms and conditions in terms of Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act.
10. Under the circumstance, the insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation being paid to the
claimants. Insurance company is directed to make full and final
satisfaction of the compensation amount and shall have right of recovery
against the owner of the vehicle (Respondent Nos. 3) for the
compensation amount paid to the claimants.
The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the claim
application will be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the
claimants after adjustment of the compensation amount.
The Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/-
