Jharkhand High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Nira Devi @ Malti Devi on 6 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:33246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 247 of 2025
M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager,
having its local office at Shastri Nagar, Dowatand, PO& PS Dhansar, District
Dhanbad and also through its Zonal Manager (Legal Claims) Sri. Kaushal Kishor
Mishra, aged about 44 years, son of Jagannath Mishtra, residing at, 4th Floor,
163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, PO & PS - Tollygunj, District - Kolkata - 700026
(West Bengal) (Insurer of offending vehicle Tata Hyva Tipper No. JH-10N-2539)
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Nira Devi @ Malti Devi, aged about 39 years, w/o Late Bharat Napit,
2. Anita Kumari, aged about 21 years, daughter of Late Bharat Napit,
3. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 17 years,
4. Shankar Napit, aged about 16 years,
Both sons of Late Bharat Napit, Respondent no. 3 and 4 being minor are
represented by their natural guardian and mother, Smt. Nira Devi@ Malti Devi,
Respondent no. 1.
All residents of Village Jamuatand, PO Nawagarh, PS Baghmara, District -
Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
5. Paradise Transport Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Darya Singh, a company
having its address at Flat No. 2, Deepraj Apartment, Shastri Nagar (East), PO
& PS Bank More, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 826001. (Owner of offending vehicle
Tata Hyva Tipper No. JH-10N-2539).
6. Ratan Turi, s/o Ltd. Mangar Turi, resident of Village & PO-Madaidih, PS-
Topchanchi, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant :Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
For the Claimants : Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate
------
Order No. 06 / Dated : 06.11.2025.
Earlier, the notice was validly served on the owner of the vehicle (R-5) but
none has appeared on his behalf. Consequently, the case is proceeding ex-
parte against him.
1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in M.A.C.C. No. 225 of 2018, whereby and whereunder
liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
2. The finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the
accidental death of Bharat Napit on 21.11.2008 due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of Hywa Dumper bearing registration no. JH10N-2539
is not under challenge.
2025:JHHC:33246
3. Appeal is preferred solely on the ground that the nature of the insurance
policy was to cover any damage to the Hywa and did not involve third party
risk coverage. A specific reference is made to Ext. 6 which is the policy of
insurance adduced into evidence on behalf of the claimants.
4. It is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the policy of
insurance covers contractor's plant and machinery as has been noted in the
policy of insurance for which premium of Rs. 1,37,701/- was paid. No
premium amount was charged to cover third party risk. It is argued that it has
come in the deposition of D.W.-1 who was examined on behalf of the
Insurance Company and stated that policy of insurance was under plant and
machinery, which did not mention third party insurance coverage.
5. It is argued that learned Tribunal allowed the claim by relying on M.A. No.
13 of 2018 (Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.
Anjuman Ara & Ors). In the said case, it is argued that there was no such
issue that in a policy for plant and machinery, third party coverage is implicit
and can be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has defended the impugned
order by relying M.A. No. 13/2018.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on
perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the policy of insurance
did not extend to cover third party risk and was confined to plant and
machinery only. In this view of the matter, it does not stand to reason as to
how the insurance company can be liable to pay compensation amount in the
first place. In order to make insurance company liable under Section 147 of
the M.V. Act, the fundamental requirement is that the vehicle should be
insured and the person, who died in the accident, should be covered by the
said insurance policy. Policy of insurance should be a package policy so as to
saddle the Insurance Company with liability to pay for third party liability, or
in the least it should cover third party. Here, it is neither the case, so naturally
and logically, it is not the insurance company but the owner of the vehicle
who will be liable to pay compensation.
8. Reliance on M.A. No. 13/2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
is misplaced as from the plain reading of the order, it is manifest that the issue
of the vehicle having no insurance policy to cover third party risk was not
there before the Court.
2025:JHHC:33246
9. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside.
10.Misc. Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
11.However, the claimant will be entitled to be paid the compensation amount
from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 5). The owner of the vehicle
(respondent no. 5) will make the payment to the claimant within four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order failing which learned
Tribunal will proceed against the owner of the vehicle accordingly.
12.The statutory amount, deposited at the time of preferring the Misc. Appeal,
be returned to the appellant-insurance company.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
10.11.2025
