Jharkhand High Court
M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Sulochana Devi on 24 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 312 of 2024
M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Limited, Sri Ram City, 4th Floor, Office No. 410,
Main Road, Saraidhela, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S.
Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, through
Manager Legal, Amit Jaiswal, aged about 34
years, son of Shri M. Bhagat, having its Branch at
Kadru Bye Pass Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi.
(Insurer of Motorcycle No. JH-10BD-0778).
..... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sulochana Devi, wife of Late Basudev Rajwar.
2. Bandana Devi, daughter of Late Basudev
Rajwar & wife of Kishor Rajwar.
3. Manish Kumar, son of Late Basudev Rajwar.
4. Priyanka Kumari, daughter of Late Basudev
Rajwar.
5. Anshu Kumari, daughter of Late Basudev
Rajwar.
Sl. Nos. 4 & 5 are minors and are being
represented through their mother Sulochana Devi,
wife of Late Basudev Rajwar.
6. Mohan Rajwar, father's name not known to the
appellant.
7. Pawan Devi, wife of Mohan Rajwar.
All residents of Qr. No. A/8/10, N.B.C.C.
Colony, Nunudih, P.O. Patherdih, P.S. Sudamdih,
District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
8. Santosh Bouri, son of Late Mitan Bouri,
resident of At Pure Chasnala, Hirak Road,
-1-
Chasnalla, Ρ.Ο. Chasnalla, P.S. Chasnalla, District
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
(Owner of Motorcycle No. JH-10BD-0778).
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 7 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate.
For the Resp. No. 8 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II.
------
04/ 24.07.2025 By order dated 28.03.2025, the Trial Court Records have
been called, which have already been received.
2. From the Trial Court Records, it transpires that the
accident took place on 16.01.2018 at 04.00 P.M. and the F.I.R. was
registered on 23.02.2018 at 14.40 hours. The deceased was said to
be the employee of the BCCL and in this background, the claim case
was registered on 14.05.2018 stating that on 16.01.2018 at 4.00
P.M, the deceased Basudev Rajwar was going to Jealgora by a
Motorcycle and when he reached near Shiv Mandir, Digwadi No. 12,
P.S. Jealgora, District Dhanbad, the rider of Motorcycle came in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of
deceased from behind resultantly he sustained severe injuries and
subsequently, he died.
3. The appellant-insurance company has contended in this
appeal that family members have become driver, witnesses and
bailors in four of the cases and in all four of the cases, the amount to
the tune of rupees more than one crore has been allowed by the
learned tribunal and in the present case also, the award is more
than one crore.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant insurance
company that it cannot be the coincidence of becoming the driver,
bailors and witnesses in all the four cases from the same family and
it has been further pointed out that the witness to that effect has
been examined by the insurance company before the learned
tribunal, who has stated all these things on oath and the learned
tribunal in para-8 of the award, has only referred that one witness
has been examined, however, the discussion of the statements and
discarding the same has not been discussed in the impugned award.
In view of that prayer has been made that racket is going on in the
State of Jharkhand to make out a case for compensation by way of
manipulating the documents and the insurance companies are
being made liable to pay the compensation.
5. A chart has been made in the memo of appeal in para-
14, which states as under:-
(Dhanbad) (Dhanbad) (Dhanbad)
Nirmal Prasad Driver of Driver of Car
S/o Gopal Motorcycle No. No. JH-10-AY- --
Prasad JH-10-BD-0778 7543
Arun Prasad S/o -- -- Owner of Car
Gopal Prasad No. JH-10-BT-
Shanu Kumar, Bail bond of Police seizure Driver of Car
S/o Naresh Parvikar of witness No. JH-10-T-
Prasad Mandal driver in GR case 0316
Naresh Prasad -- CS Eye witness, Police Seizure
Mandal S/o Late bailor of driver witness
Rajendra Pd. in GR case
Mandal
Mangesh Kumar Police CS witness -- Police seizure
Singh, S/o Durga witness
Singh
Delay FIR 38 days 82 days 47 days
Status Appeal of this Withdrawn and Appeal M.A.
case filed in Purulia 142 of 2019
Court, WB
6. From the above, it transpires that the mention of three
cases are there and in all these cases, there are delay of 38 days, 82
days and 47 days respectively in registering the FIRs and in the
present appeal also there is also delay of 38 days in registering the
FIR. The witness namely Rajiv Ranjan Yadav has been examined by
the insurance company, who has stated as under:-
"AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE OF OPW1 FOR O.P.No.2
I, Rajeev Ranjan Yadav, aged about 38 years,
son of Ram Kishor Yadav, at present working as
Investigator of Eagle Investigation Agency as
resident of Dhobana Panchayat Baghnadih Post
Pathrol Madhupur Deoghar Jharkhand 815352, do
hereby solemnly affirm and beg to state as follows:
1. That, I am working as the Investigator and
looking after the Investigation of MV case No.
107/2018. In that capacity, i am acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case basing on
my official records.
2. That ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd has appointed us on
dated 10 October 2019 to investigate the case.
3. That, there is an involvement of two motor
vehicle in an accident and FIR No. 13/2018 at PS
Jorapokhar, Dhanbad was lodged with an
inordinate delay of 38 days in Lodging the FIR.
Police case has been manipulated for the Present
compensation.
4. That, the Motorcycle rider Nirmal Kumar S/o
Late Gopal Prasad at the relevant time of accident,
was not having any driving license.
5. That, Police after Investigation on dated
18.06.2019 has filed the Charge sheet against the
Motorcycle rider Nirmal Prasad S/o Late Gopal
Prasad, address as Nunudih Colony PS Sudamdih
Dhanbad.
6. That Police on dated 02.04.2018 has prepared
the seizure of Motor cycle No. JH13D-0778 namely
with witness 1) Nishant Kumar Sinha S/o Gopal
Prasad 2) Chotu Singh S/o Late Durga Singh,
address as Nunudih Colony, PS Sudamdih,
Dhanbad.
7. That, Accused driver Nirmal Kumar S/o Late
Gopal Prasad has taken bail and furnished Bail
bond in PS Case No. 13/2018 Jorapokhar from the
Hon'ble Court of Miss. Tabinda Khan Dhanbad,
where Bailor No. 2 is Nishant Kumar S/o Late
Gopal Prasad, having address of Nunudih Colony
PS Sudamdih, Dhanbad.
8. That accused driver Nirmal Kumar S/o Late
Gopal Prasad, the Parivakar certificate of bail bond
was filed by Shanu Kumar S/o Naresh Prasad
Mandal, having address of Nunudih Colony. PS
Sudamdih, Dhanbad.
9. That, Accused driver Nirmal Kumar S/o Late
Gopal Prasad and Police seizure witness & Bailor
surety is Nishant Kumar S/o Late Gopal Prasad are
own brothers and lives in same locality.
10. That, accused driver Nirmal Kumar S/o Late
Gopal Prasad is shown as driver in MV Case
300/2017 in Case titled Mani Mala Prasad Vs ICICI
Lombard GIC Ltd, filed before Hon'ble court
Dhanbad, as driver of Swift car in PS Case No.
31/2017 at Sudamdih, Dhanbad.
11. That, Sanu Kumar S/o Naresh Prasad
Mandal is the pairvikar of Bail bond certificate in
this case, whereas Sanu Kumar S/o Naresh Prasad
Mandal is shown as driver in MV Case No.
317/2017 in case titled Manju Sinha Vs. Vs ICICI
Lombard GIC Ltd, filed before Hon'ble court
Dhanbad.
12. That, the Naresh Prasad Mandal, father of Sanu
Kumar becomes Independent eye witness to police
in case No. MV Case 300/2017 in Case titled Mani
Mala Prasad Vs ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, filed before
Hon'ble court Dhanbad, where as he becomes to
seizure of vehicle to Police in case No. MV Case No.
317/2017 in case titled Manju Sinha Vs. Vs ICICI
Lombard GIC Ltd, filed before Hon'ble court
Dhanbad.
13. There is nexus of fraud claim of Implantation
for the compensation.
14. That, this is a fake claim filed by the claimants
in collusion with the police officials and vehicle and
driver has been planted in this case for
compensation.
15. That, the facts stated above are true to my
knowledge basing on the documents available on
record.
16. That, The O.P No.2 is neither legally nor
contractually liable to pay compensation in this
case.
Verifications
I, Rajeev Ranjan Yadav, Investigator do
hereby declare that the statements made in the
above paragraphs to the best of my knowledge and
information as derived from records Sworn and
signed on this the 25th day of April 2024."
7. The names taken in the aforesaid affidavit by the Rajeev
Ranjan Yadav and further comparing the chart, disclosed in para-
14, as noted hereinabove, it transpires that the persons in these
cases and in the present case, some are similar, which prima facie
suggests that some manipulations are being done to make out a
case of compensation in light of the motor vehicle accident claim
cases.
8. Mr. Karan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 7-claimants submits that the accident took place and that
is proved in light of the FIR and the chargesheet and in view of that
the claimants are entitled for the compensation.
9. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.8, who is the owner of the offending vehicle submits
that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance
company and in view of that the learned tribunal has rightly passed
the award. He submits that this court is required to consider
further aspect of the matter before passing the final order on the
award.
10. In these background, it cannot be ruled out even in a case
of hit and run, if the vehicles are insured the cases are being managed
in a form that the case be established before the learned tribunal and
even vehicles are being implanted in many cases that has been argued
before this court and all these aspects have been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Safiq Ahmad Versus ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in
(2021) 18 SCC 813, where in para-8.5 of the said judgment,
suggestion is there for constituting the Special Investigation Team
(SIT) to all the States. The said Safiq Ahmad Case (Supra) was further
taken up on 16.04.2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
paras-4 and 5, the following directions have been issued, which reads
as under:-
"4. We expect all the States to file response
within a period of three weeks clearly
indicating as to how many fake claims have
been detected throughout the respective
States and the manner in which the
exercise of detection of fake claims was
carried out. It would be better if the report
of the Special Investigation Team ('SIT') in
this regard is also enclosed with the
affidavit. The affidavit should also indicate
the investigation which may have been
carried out in respect of such fake claims
and whether charge sheets have been
submitted or the charges have been
framed.
5. Once such affidavits are filed by the
States, it is expected that a tabular chart of
the fake claims State/District wise be
drawn on their basis for convenience
whereupon the Court will consider further
action in the matters."
11. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed all the States to file their response indicating as to how
many fake claim cases have been detected throughout the
respective States. In light of that direction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and further considering that prima facie case of fraud is made
out and further it transpires that this is a fit case to constitute a
Special Investigation Team ('SIT') to inquire into the matter and
submit a report about the genuineness of the claim case.
12. Thus, this Court direct the Director General of Police,
Jharkhand, Ranchi to constitute a Special Investigation Team ('SIT')
to be headed by an officer not below the rank of "Inspector General
of Police". The said Special Investigation Team ('SIT') should be
constituted within two weeks from today and a report should be
submitted within three months before this Court in a sealed cover.
13. After the investigation, if the Special Investigation Team
('SIT') concludes that the claim case is fake, then in the report, the
names of the persons, who are involved in that case should be
reflected in the report. Further, affidavit to this effect shall be filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the direction in the
case of Safiq Ahmad Case (Supra).
14. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II is present in the
court and in view of that this court has requested him to apprise
about this order and hand over this order for onward
communication to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
for the needful.
15. Let the name of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II be
reflected in the cause list as a counsel for the State henceforth.
16. In the meantime, the appellant-insurance company is
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest
before the learned Tribunal within three weeks from today. The
said amount shall not be disbursed to the claimants without the
permission of this Court.
17. Since the Court has directed to deposit the entire
awarded amount along with interest, there shall be stay of further
proceedings in connection with Execution Case No. 58 of 2025
[Motor Accident Claim Case No. 107 of 2018], pending in the court
of learned Principal District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad till the
next date of listing.
18. In view of the above, I.A. No. 7360 of 2025 filed for stay
stands disposed of.
19. Rest of the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-insurance company as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the owner of the
offending vehicle shall be considered after receiving of the Special
Investigation Team ('SIT') report and at the time of further hearing
in the present appeal.
20. Registry of this court will also communicate this order
to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi for the needful.
21. Let this appeal be again placed on 12.11.2025.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
