United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Rabi Mahato & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6836 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Rabi Mahato & Ors on 13 November, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            M. A. No. 97 of 2017

United India Insurance Company Ltd.             ....   .... Appellant
                     Versus
Rabi Mahato & Ors.                       ....   ....       Respondents
                       -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate

-----

Oral Order 11 / Dated : 13.11.2025 I.A. No. 14879 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4/11 and 9 of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act for substitution of legal heirs of deceased respondent no. 2- Baidyanath Das after condoning the delay and after setting aside the abatement of appeal.

The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation, whereby liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount. Respondent no. 2 is the owner who has died but his date of death is not known to the appellant Insurance Company. The knowledge about his death came in view of the service report which was sent to respondent no. 2 on 12.03.2025. After receiving the information about the death of respondent no. 2 from the service report, the substitution petition has been filed.

As per the service report, the son of respondent no. 2 disclosed that his father has died eight years ago.

In view of the fact that no informatory petition was filed under Order XXII Rule 10A of CPC, therefore, knowledge cannot be imputed to the appellant regarding the date of death of respondent no. 2. Although from the service report, it appears that there is long delay but unless it is brought to the knowledge of the appellant, he cannot be held liable for delay in pressing the instant interlocutory application.

Under the circumstance, the abatement of appeal against respondent no. 2 is set aside and the delay is condoned and the substitution petition is allowed.

Let the name of legal heirs as fully described in paragraph-4 of the interlocutory application be substituted in place of deceased respondent no.

2. Office is directed to make necessary entry in the cause title of the memo of appeal by red ink.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to serve notice upon the substituted legal heirs of respondent no. 2 under ordinary process as well as under speed post for filing of requisites etc. within two weeks.

List this case after six weeks.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra

Uploaded 14.11.2025