Jharkhand High Court
Khalil Ansari Son Of Late J. Ansari vs Anupama Devi on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:17472 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 568 of 2017
Khalil Ansari son of late J. Ansari, resident of Murga Bari, P.O. and P.S.
Govindpur, Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
......... Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Anupama Devi, wife of late Ramesh Kumar Choubey
2. Awanish Kumar Choubey, son of late Ramesh Kumar Choubey
3. Ashish Kumar Choubey, son of late Ramesh Kumar Choubey
All are resident of Quarter No. K-2-32 Telco Colony P.O. and P.S. Telco
Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
4. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Office Main Road, Opposite Ram Mandir P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ....... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mansih Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate
06/Dated: 02/07/2025
Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel, who has been
authorized to argue this matter on behalf of Mr. G.P. Roy, who is the
Advocate on record and Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.4/ United India Insurance Company Limited.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that I.A. No. 1534
of 2018 has been filed for condonation of delay of 354 days in filing the
appeal. He submits that in preparation of filing appeal, the said delay has
occurred which may kindly be condoned.
3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that there is no explanation and no cogent reason has been
assigned to condone the delay of 354 days.
4. Taking the lenient view, the delay of 354 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
5. I.A. No. 1534 of 2018 stands disposed of.
( 2025:JHHC:17472 )
6. The appellant has filed the present appeal being dissatisfied
with the judgment/ award dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned District
Judge-III -cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in
Compensation Case No.145 of 2014.
7. Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan
of the informant namely Anup Kumar Singh and his fardbeyan was recorded
on 19.04.2014 at about 6.30 a.m. and it was registered as Nirsa P.S. Case
No.121 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014 against the driver of the truck bearing
registration No.JH-10N-9051. It was stated in the fardbeyan that Anup
Kumar Singh aged about 26 years son of late Madhab Prasad, village-Jedor
Manjgai, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka (Bihar) at that time was residing at
Jamshedpur. On 18.04.2014 the deceased along with his relatives standing
on left side of NH-2 road for starting the procession of Barat and during that
time the offending truck bearing registration No.JH-10N-9051 was coming
from Nirsa Bazar side which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the
deceased and thereafter he has left for his heavenly abode. He submits that
the learned court has wrongly passed the award holding that the driving
license of the driver was fake. He submits that the truck in question was
insured with insurance company and in view of that the appellant is not
liable to pay whereas the direction was issued by the learned Tribunal to
satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the truck. In that
view of the matter, the award may kindly be modified.
8. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the insurance
company/ United India Insurance Company Limited draws the attention of
the Court to the finding of the learned court with regard to the driving
license and submits that Issue No.III was framed with regard to the valid
driving license. He submits that the learned court has come to the finding
( 2025:JHHC:17472 )
on the documents brought by the insurance company that two licenses on
which the owner has relied were found to be fake and in view of that the
learned Tribunal has rightly passed the said order.
9. The learned Tribunal has considered that the insurance
company has filed the xerox copy of the license of driver namely, Sanjay
Kumar Mandal which has been marked as Exhibit-A, Original Certificate
dated 01.03.2016 issued by the D.T.O., Lohardaga is marked as Exhibit-D,
Original Investigation Report dated 07.03.2016 of Ashish Agarwal is Exhibit-
E and Original Challan dated 12.02.2016 is marked as Exhibit-F. The learned
Tribunal has further considered that insurance company produced one oral
witness namely Kamal Nayan who has stated in his examination-in-chief that
he was posted as Administrative Officer at United India Insurance Company
and as such, he was knowing about the facts of accident. He has stated that
Sanjay Kumar Mandal was driving the truck and it is alleged that he has
kept License No.106/PE and it was issued from the D.T.O. Office, Ranchi for
driving the light motor vehicles and it was alleged that this license was
included HGV from the D.T.O. Office, Lohardaga for running the heavy
motor vehicle and the driving License no.2341/04 has been issued. The said
witness further stated that the insurance company has enquired about the
license through his investigating officer Shahnaj Parvin from the D.T.O.,
Ranchi and D.T.O., Ranchi has sent a reply through letter on 27.02.2015 and
found the license was not issued by his office and found that the license is
fake. Shahnaj Parvin has also submitted his report on 21.09.2015 in this
regard. She has further stated that License No.2341/04 of Sanjay Kumar
Mandal issued from the D.T.O. Office, Lohardaga was also found to be fake
on enquiry. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Tribunal has
come to the conclusion that there is violation of the terms and conditions of
the Policy, so the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation
( 2025:JHHC:17472 )
to the claimants.
10. When the license was found to be fake, onus lies upon the
owner of the vehicle to prove the fact that it was not fake. The owner has
not been able to prove the same fact before the learned Tribunal. Thus,
there is no illegality in the said finding and if there is violation of the terms
and conditions of the Policy, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the
Policy will be satisfied by the insurance company and the insurance
company will recover the same from the owner of the truck in question.
11. The Court finds that there is no illegality or any error in the
finding of the learned Tribunal.
12. As such, this appeal being M.A. No. 568 of 2017 is dismissed.
13. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
