[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mantu Vishwakarma S/O Late Mohan ... on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 552 of 2016
The New India Assurance Co. LTD, situated at Laxmi Market
Complex, H B Road Ranchi, Jharkhand, through its Division
Office, represented through the Authorized officer Mr. Kapil
Kispotta S/o Late Matious Kispotta of the Divisional office at
Pee Pee Compound P.O. Chutia P.S. Hindpiri Dist Ranchi-
834001- Jharkhand. (Insurer of the - Maruti Van JH-01-D-
6819) ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Mantu Vishwakarma s/o Late Mohan Vishwakarma r/o
Village Friends Colony, Ratu Road, PO PS Sukhdeonagar,
Dist Ranchi, PIN 834005, Jharkhand
... ... Claimant/Respondent
2. Sunil Kumar Mathur s/o Rajendra Prasad r/o Harmu Road,
Hesadgunj PO GPO Ranchi, PS Kotwali Dist Ranchi, Pin
834001, Jharkhand (Owner of the Maruti Van JH-01-D-
6819)
... ... Opp. Party No.1/Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Sunita Ojha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 01.08.2025 Pronounced on 28.11.2025
1. Heard Mrs. Sunita Ojha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Nikhil
Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (claimant)
as well as Mr. Atul Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent no.2 (owner of the vehicle).
2025:JHHC:35705
2. The instant miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the
appellant-the New India Assurance Company Limited against
the award dated 23.07.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation
Case No.182/2011 whereby and whereunder, the learned
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8, 93, 486/- with interest
thereon at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 30
days from the date of filing of the case i.e. 17.06.2011.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.12.2006,
Mantu Vishwakarma (injured) along with his friend while
commuting from Ranchi to Bundu from a Maruti Van
bearing registration no. JH 01D 6819 was knocked down
from the front by an unknown Chassis which was driven in a
rash and negligent manner on NH-33 and all the Occupants
of the said Maruti van sustained grievous injury. Mantu
Vishwakarma sustained multiple injuries on his head and
got fractured his left leg. An F.I.R. regarding aforesaid
incident was lodged being Namkum P.S. Case No. 193/2006
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C.
4. Thereafter, the injured who is the claimant filed an
application under Section 140 and Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) arraying owner of the Maruti van
bearing registration no. JH 01D 6819 and insurer of the said
van i.e. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. as opposite
parties. While adjudicating the application under Section 140
of M.V. Act, both the above stated Owner and insurer
appeared and filed their respective Show causes under
Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Considering all the materials on
record, the Tribunal ordered the Insurance Company to
indemnify the injured/claimant an interim Compensation to
the tune of Rs 25,000 under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.
2025:JHHC:35705
5. Thereafter, an application under Section 166 of
M.V. Act was admitted for hearing on 07.08.2013 after the
filing of requisite court fee and the notices were issued upon
opposite parties. The Tribunal vide its order dated
20.03.2014 directed to proceed ex parte against owner and
insurer of the said Maruti van. However, the Insurance
Company being O.P. no.-2 filed the show cause under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act on 22.07.2014 before the
Tribunal which was kept on the record.
6. In support of this claim, Injured-claimant got
examined two witnesses, himself as A.W.-1, Mantu
Vishwakarma and A.W.-2 Ashok Vishwakarma. These two
witnesses reiterated the incident and A.W.-1 Mantu
Vishwakarma (himself) brought on record the following
documents:
Ext. 1- Salary certificate, dated 01.01.07 of the applicant issued
by Ashok Vishwakarma proprietor of Ashok Motor Garage.
Ext. 2- Certified copy of FIR vide Namkum P. S. Case No. 193/06,
dated 20.12.06 against the driver of unknown chasis u/s 279,
337 and 338 of IPC.
Ext. 3-Certified copy of final report vide final report No. 132/07,
dated 12.07.07, u/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
Ext. 4- Certificate regarding disability of the applicant namely
Mantu Vishwakarma issued vide certificate No. 285, dated
21.02.14, from office of the Civil Surgeon cum C. M. O., Ranchi.
Ext.5 Certified copy of order dated 03.06.11 passed by the PLA,
Ranchi, in PLA case No. 1183, 1184 of 2007.
Ext-6- Photo copy of insurance policy issued by O. P. No. 2, New
India Assurance Co. Ltd vide policy No.
540900/31/06/01/00001003 for the vehicle Maruti Van bearing
registration No. JH-01D-6819 in the name of Sunil Kumar
Mathur, O. P. No. 1, valid from 12.07.06 to 11.07.07.
Ext-7 to 7/7 Bed head ticket of the applicant namely Mantu
Vishawakarma issued from RIMS, Ranchi from 02.12.06 till
17.01.07 vide registration No. ERNS/3064, PIR No. 11548,
admitted for treatment of head injury.
Ext. 8 to 8/3 Discharge sheet issued from RIMS, Ranchi for
Mantu Vishawakarama applicant for different periods
2025:JHHC:35705
Ext. 8/4 & 8/5 - Discharge ticket issued from H. D. Nursing
Home and Research Centre, Ranchi, for the applicant/injured
namely Mantur Vishawakarama.
Ext. 9 to 9/16 Investigation report / Scan of the injured during
his treatment at the hospital, RIMS, Ranchi and H. D. Nursing
Home on different dates.
Ext.9/17 to 9/18- Receipt No. 5449, dated 17.04.07 and No.
5062, dated 24.10.07, issued from Indian Red Cross Society for
charges to supply blood to the applicant/injured namely Mantu
Vishawakarama.
Ext 10 to 10/73 Receipts / cash memo for purchasing medicines
by the applicant/injured during his treatment.
7. After analyzing the materials available on record,
learned Tribunal passed an award dated 23.07.2016 in
Compensation Case No.182/2011 whereby and whereunder
the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,93,486/-
with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum within a
period of 30 days from the date of filing of the case i.e.
17.06.2011.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
Insurance Company on the limited point that the respondent
no.1/injured being an occupant travelling in the said Maruti
van which was knocked down by the other unknown chassis
and since there is no negligence on part of the Maruti van,
the injured/claimant is not entitled for any compensation or
relief on the basis of existing Insurance Policy on the fault of
unknown chassis.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.-
1/injured-claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal has
rightly awarded the compensation and the appellant-
Insurance Company and the respondent no.-2/owner of the
Maruti van were debarred from the proceeding before the
learned Tribunal as ex parte order was passed against them,
therefore, Insurance Company and the owner cannot be
2025:JHHC:35705
allowed to agitate these issues before the appellate court and
the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.-2/owner of the
Maruti van submitted that the Maruti van bearing
registration no. JH 01D 6819 was duly insured at the time of
accident by the insurer (appellant herein) under the name
"Policy and package" which is a Comprehensive/ package
Policy, thus the liability to indemnify the respondent no.-
1/Injured/claimants has been rightly foisted upon the
insurer (appellant herein) by the learned Tribunal.
11. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record of Tribunal.
12. It transpires from the record that Mantu
Vishwakarma (injured/claimant) was an occupant travelling
from the Maruti van bearing registration no. JH 01D 6819
and owner of the Maruti van is Sunil Kumar Mathur who is
respondent no.-2 in the instant appeal.
13. Record further reveals that FIR (vide Ext.2) and Final
Form (vide Ext.3) clearly show that there was no negligence
on the part of the deceased as it is very evident from these
documents as well as assertions of injured/ claimant that
the said Maruti van was knocked from the front by unknown
Chassis and the injured/claimant sustained multiple
injuries. Disability certificate (vide Ext.4) reveals that the
injured claimant being 60% physically disabled having case
of shortening of the left lower limb. Photo copy of Insurance
policy (Ext. 6) issued by the appellant, New India Assurance
Co. Ltd vide policy No. 540900/31/06/01/00001003 for the
vehicle (Maruti Van) bearing registration no. JH-01D-6819 in
the name of Sunil Kumar Mathur (respondent no.-2), having
validity from 12.07.06 to 11.07.07 bearing heading "Private
car Policy and Package".
2025:JHHC:35705
14. It is apposite to refer herein the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan reported in (2013) 1
SCC 731 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
"comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of
the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in
a private Car and also discussed the case of
Bhagyalakshmi v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in
(2009) 7 SCC 148 which has been referred to the Larger
Bench of the Apex Court on the question of "Act Policy"
coverage to the third party and further relied upon the
judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Yaspal Luthra
Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)]
wherein a circular issued by IRDA dated 16-11-2009,
imposing liability and directing all the general insurance
companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the
occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler
under the Comprehensive/Package Policies. For ready
reference, the relevant portions of judgment are quoted
hereunder -
18. At this juncture, we may refer with profit to a two-Judge Bench
decision in Bhagyalakshmi v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC
148 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] wherein the
learned Judges took note of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant claimant which was to the effect that after the deletion of
the second proviso appended to Section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 in the 1988 Act, the liability of a passenger in a private vehicle
must also be included in the policy in terms of the provisions of the 1988
Act. The Bench reproduced the policy, referred to Section 64-B of the
Insurance Act, 1938, took note of the role of the Tariff Advisory Committee
and referred to the decisions in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi
Thapar [(1998) 3 SCC 744 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 158] , Asha Rani [(2003) 2
SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] , Tilak Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006)
2 SCC (Cri) 344] , Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9 SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri)
443] and Sudhakaran K.V. [(2008) 7 SCC 428 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 110]
and observed thus: (Bhagyalakshmi case [(2009) 7 SCC 148 : (2009) 3
SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] , SCC p. 158, para 25)
"25. Before this Court, however, the nature of policies which
came up for consideration were Act policies. This Court did not
deal with a package policy. If the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks
to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third-party risk
which would include all persons including occupants of the
vehicle and the insurer having entered into a contract of insurance
2025:JHHC:35705
in relation thereto, we are of the opinion that the matter may
require a deeper scrutiny."
19. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear as crystal
that the decisions that have been referred to
in Bhagyalakshmi [(2009) 7 SCC 148: (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87:
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] involved only "Act policies". The Bench
felt that the matter would be different if the Tariff Advisory
Committee seeks to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of
third-party risk which would include an occupant in a vehicle. It is
worth noting that the Bench referred to certain decisions of the
Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court and thought it
appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Be it noted, in the
said case, the Court was dealing with comprehensive policy which is
also called a package policy. In that context, in the earlier part of
the judgment, the Bench had stated thus: (SCC p. 153, para 13)
"13. The policy in question is a package policy. The contract of
insurance if given its face value covers the risk not only of a third
party but also of persons travelling in the car including the owner
thereof. The question is as to whether the policy in question is a
comprehensive policy or only an Act policy."
20. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Bench in Bhagyalakshmi
case [(2009) 7 SCC 148: (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri)
321] had made a distinction between the "Act policy" and
"comprehensive policy/package policy". We respectfully concur with
the said distinction. The crux of the matter is what would be the
liability of the insurer if the policy is a "comprehensive/package
policy". We are absolutely conscious that the matter has been
referred to a larger Bench, but, as is evident, the Bench has also
observed that it would depend upon the view of the Tariff Advisory
Committee pertaining to enforcement of its decision to cover the
liability of an occupant in a vehicle in a "comprehensive/package
policy" regard being had to the contract of insurance.
22. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by
the High Court is as follows: (Yaspal Luthra case [2011 ACJ 1415
(Del)] , ACJ pp. 1419-20, para 20)
"INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Ref.: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009
Dated: 16-11-2009
To,
CEOs of all general insurance companies
Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupants of a
private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the Standard
Motor Package Policy (also called 'the Comprehensive Policy').
Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section II(1)(ii) of
Standard Motor Package Policy (also called 'the Comprehensive
Policy') for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile)
India Motor Tariff (IMT). For convenience the relevant
provisions are reproduced hereunder:
'Section II--Liability to Third Parties
(1) Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto
the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident
caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all
sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect
of--
(i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in
the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or
reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements
2025:JHHC:35705
of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such
death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such
person by the insured.'
It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above
provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the
TAC on the subject:
(i) Circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978 dated 18-3-1978 (regarding occupants
carried in private car) effective from 25-3-1977.
(ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2-6-1986 (regarding pillion riders on a two-
wheeler) effective from the date of the circular.
The above circulars make it clear that the insured's liability in respect
of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on a
two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A
copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference.
The Authority vide Circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated 26-3-
2008 issued under File and Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending
further orders the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and
conditions wording, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of
covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority, vide
Circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct-08 dated 6-11-2008 has
mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of
standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the
options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All general insurers are
advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non-
compliance with the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority.
This is issued with the approval of competent authority.
sd/- (Prabodh Chander)
Executive Director."
(emphasis supplied)
23. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRDA dated 3-12-
2009. It is instructive to quote the same: (Yashpal Luthra case [2011 ACJ 1415
(Del)] , ACJ pp. 1422-23, para 23)
"INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Ref.: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009
Dated: 3-12-2009
To,
All the CEOs of all general insurance companies (except ECGC,
AIC, Staff Health, Apollo)
Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of
a private car and a pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the
Standard Motor Package Policy (also called 'the
Comprehensive Policy').
Pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court dated 23-11-
2009 in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [
MAC Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 23-11-2009 (Del)]
, the Authority convened a meeting on 26-11-2009 of the
CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor
insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing
on behalf of the Authority and the learned amicus curiae.
Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the
representatives of the general insurance companies to comply
with the IRDA circular dated 16-11-2009 restating the
position relating to the liability of all the general insurance
companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the
occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler
under the Comprehensive/Package Policies which was
communicated to the court on the same day i.e. 26-11-2009
2025:JHHC:35705
and the court was pleased to pass the order (dated 26-11-2009
[Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC
Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 26-11-2009 (Del)] )
received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed
for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said
order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance
companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the
occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler
under the Comprehensive/Package Policies, you are advised
to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance with the
Circular dated 16-11-2009 and order dated 26-11-2009
[Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC
Appeal No. 176 of 2009, order dated 26-11-2009 (Del)] of the
High Court. Such compliance on your part would also
involve:
(i) withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in
the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate
instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers
within 7 days;
(ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on
this point, issuing instructions within 7 days to the respective
operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this
ground which would require identification of the number of
appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the
claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks
and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of
four weeks thereafter;
(iii) with respect to the appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective
Advocates-on-Record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate
advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions
in the CEOs meeting on 26-11-2009, when it was reiterated that
insurers must take immediate steps to collect statistics about
accident claims on the above subject through a central point of
reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in
due course to the Hon'ble High Court. You are, therefore, advised
to take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information
within a period of two months to ensure necessary and effective
compliance with the order of the court. The information may be
centralised with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council
and also furnished to us.
IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken
by you in this regard.
This has the approval of the competent authority.
sd/-
(Prabodh Chander)
Executive Director."
(emphasis added)
24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31-12-2006 the
Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1-1-2007 IRDA
functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are
entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the
policies issued by all insurance companies. The High Court had
issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA to
explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance
companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the
"comprehensive/package policy". Before the High Court, the
2025:JHHC:35705
competent authority of IRDA had stated that on 2-6-1986, the
Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the
insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a
scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive policy" and the said
position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that
the "comprehensive policy" is presently called a "package
policy". It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the
earlier Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 continue to be
valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay
the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in
a car under the "comprehensive/package policy" irrespective of
the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent
authority of IRDA was also examined before the High Court who
stated that the Circulars dated 18-3-1978 and 2-6-1986 of the
Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor
Tariff effective from 1-7-2002 and they continue to be operative
and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid
factual position, the Circulars dated 16-11-2009 and 3-12-2009,
that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued.
25. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to
individual circulars issued by various insurance companies,
eventually stated [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] thus: (Yashpal Luthra
case [2011 ACJ 1415 (Del)] , ACJ p. 1424, para 27)
"27. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the
comprehensive/package policy of a two-wheeler covers a pillion
rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers
the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a
comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the
insurance company is liable to compensate for the death or injury
of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private
car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA,
such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised
as, for instance, it was done in the present case."
26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of
doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the
liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the
occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act policy" stands on
a different footing from a "comprehensive/package policy". As the
circulars have made the position very clear and IRDA, which is
presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance
companies stating that a "comprehensive/package policy" covers
the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may
hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in
respect of the "Act policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third-
party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a
"comprehensive/package policy", the liability would be covered.
These aspects were not noticed in Bhagyalakshmi [(2009) 7 SCC
148 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 87 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 321] and,
therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are
disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present
matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which is presently the statutory
authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have
been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we
have also reproduced the same.
15. Considering the above legal proposition and the
facts in hand, this Court is of considered view that the
Insurance Policy of the said Maruti van (Ext.-6) being a
2025:JHHC:35705
package policy covers the respondent no.-1/Injured-claimant
who was occupant in the said Maruti van, therefore, the
appellant-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.-1/Injured-claimant.
16. As far as Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
concerned, the quantum of compensation has not been
assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore, the
liability rests on the appellant-Insurance Company to
indemnify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
17. It has also brought to the notice of this Court that no
amount of award has been paid by the Insurance Company.
Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to
indemnify the amount of award to the respondent
no.-1/injured-claimant after deduction of interim
compensation under Section 140, if not received, within
a period of 45 days from today.
18. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance
Company is remitted to the learned Tribunal by learned
Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks
from today which shall be paid to the respondent no.-
1/Injured-claimant by the learned Tribunal/executing court
after notice and due verification..
19. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being
M.A. No. 552 of 2016 is hereby, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 28.11.2025
Suman/-.A.F.R.
