Jharkhand High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. 7Th ... vs Anju Devi on 13 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:33974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2019
------
Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 7th Floor, Mira Towers, DN 27,
Sector V, West Side, Salt Lake City, P.O. & P.S. Salt Lake City, Kolkata
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Anju Devi, wife of Late Ram Kumar Mahto
2. Niraj Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto
3. Bhaskar Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto
4. Prince Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto
5. Aghni Devi, wife of Late Balju Mahto
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being minors are being represented through their
mother being natural guardian and next friend, all residing at Baredih,
P.O. and P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi
6. Vinod Mahto, son of Late Pyari Mahto, resident of Village, P.O. and P.S.
Barkagaon, District Hazaraibag
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Res./Claimants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate
------
Order No.09 / Dated : 13.11.2025
Insurance Company is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of compensation in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.147/2014 whereby and whereunder liability has
been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.
2. It has not been disputed that the offending vehicle bearing
registration no.JH 01AS 4631 was involved in the motor vehicle accident
resulting in the death of Ram Kumar Mahto. It has also not been disputed
that the said vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant-
Insurance Company.
3. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that there was
a fundamental breach of insurance policy as the said offending tractor was
not having a valid permit nor the driving license was adduced into evidence
by the owner, who had appeared before the learned trial Court. It is argued
2025:JHHC:33974
that law is settled by the Apex Court in Pappu & Others Vs. Vinod Kumar
Lamba & Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208, that onus was on the owner of the
vehicle to have led evidence to establish that the driver of the offending
vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and he had valid driving
license at the time of the accident. This onus has not been discharged by the
owner of the vehicle. There was specific pleading with respect to it in para 9,
12 and 15 of the written statement.
4. Despite there being breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, no right of recovery has been given to the appellant-
Insurance Company.
5. With regard to permit, it is submitted that from the letter no.768,
dated 21.08.2015 obtained from Transport Department, South Chotanagpur
under RTI Act, it shall be evident that if the tractor was a commercial vehicle
for carrying goods, the permit was required.
6. Notices were earlier issued and had been validly served on the
owner of vehicle, but no one appeared, consequently, the appeal is being
heard ex-parte against the owner of the vehicle.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Insurance Company, it is apparent that the grounds of appeal are in two
folds i.e. failure to produce permit and driving license by the owner of the
vehicle.
8. So far permit part is concerned, from bare perusal of the FIR, it
appears that accident took place from the tractor and there is no evidence on
record to suggest that the said tractor was being used as a commercial
vehicle for carrying and transporting goods. In this view of matter, the plea
that the said vehicle was being plied as commercial vehicle requiring the
permit, cannot be accepted.
9. So far driving license is concerned, there is merit in the submission
that once the owner had appeared, it was incumbent on his part to bring on
record the driving license of the driver. The registration number of the
driving license has also not been mentioned in the claim application so as to
enable the Insurance Company to verify the same. In this view of matter,
2025:JHHC:33974
there is a clear-cut breach of terms of insurance policy for permitting the
vehicle to be driven by a person without valid driving license.
10. Under the circumstance, appellant- Insurance Company will be
entitled to right to recovery after final satisfaction of the awarded amount
with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Statutory amount be
refunded to the Insurance Company. Pending Interlocutory Application, if
any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
14.11.2025
