Jharkhand High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Nirmala Devi on 7 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:30954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 335 of 2015
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, at
Hindustan Building, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East
Singhbhum through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali,
Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Nirmala Devi, W/o Brindaban Machuwa
2. Brindaban Machuwa, S/o Late Chand Machuwa
3. Shanti Kumari (Minor), D/o Brindaban Machuwa
4. Haru Machuwa, S/o Brindaban Machuwa, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 being
minors are represented through their mother and natural guardian,
Nirmala Devi, All R/o Village-Kumbrang, P.O. & P.S.-Tandwa, Dist.-
Chatra
5. Md. Shakil Ahmad, S/o Md. Nazir Ahmad, R/o Sakchi Subjee Bazar,
Sakchi, P.O. & P.S.-Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
6. Mahendra Nath Munda, Group Leader of MESO Bus of Village-Tamar,
P.O. & P.S.-Tamar, Dist.-Ranchi
7. J.N. Munda
8. M.S. Munda
9. B.S. Munda
10.N.S. Munda
11.T.G. Munda
12.T.A. Munda
13.Kuchai Munda
14.Kamal Munda, respondent Nos. 7 to 14, all R/o Village & P.O.-Tamar,
P.S.-Tamar, Dist.-Ranchi
15.The Welfare Commissioner, MESO Khunti, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Khunti
16.United India Insurance Co. Limited, Lalji Heerji Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-
Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent-5 : Mr. Priyanshu Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
For Respondent-16 : Prashant Kumar, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
10 / Dated : 07.10.2025
1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in Compensation Case
No. 197/2003, whereby and whereunder, the liability to pay
compensation amount to the extent of 80% has been saddled on the
Insurance Company.
2. The facts are not in dispute and the challenge to the impugned award is
2025:JHHC:30954
only on the ground that the right to recovery has not been given to the
Insurance Company, notwithstanding the fact that in para-16 of the
judgment, a finding has been recorded that there was a breach of policy
of the insurance on the part of the owner of the vehicle, as the permit of
the offending Truck was not produced and the driving license was also
not produced by the owner.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that plying of
commercial vehicle without a valid permit was a breach of the term of
the insurance policy for which the Insurance Company was liable to
recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, in view
of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Vs. Vinod
Kumar Lamba {(2018) 3 SCC 208}. In the final operating part of the
judgment, the right to recovery has not been given and hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the claimants and second
Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.16 have not disputed the factual
assertion made on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the
deceased was travelling on the bus.
5. The owner of the offending Truck bearing registration No. JH05B-6945
did not appear before the Trial Court and consequently, ex-parte
proceeding was drawn against the owner.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and
on perusal of the records of the case, it is apparent that the offending
vehicle, as stated above, was under the insurance cover of the
appellant/Insurance Company. From a plain reading of the judgment of
the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the permit was not produced and
the driving license, which was produced on behalf of the claimants, was
not legible. In this view of the matter, it was a clear-cut case of breach of
insurance policy on the part of the owner (respondent no.5) of the
offending Truck.
Under the circumstance, the appellant-Insurance Company shall have
the right to recovery against the owner of the truck after satisfying the
full compensation amount by making payment to the claimants within a
month of this order.
In compliance to the order passed by this Court on 17.02.2021, the
2025:JHHC:30954
total compensation amount, payable by the appellant-Insurance
Company along with the interest, has been deposited before the learned
Tribunal. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount, if not paid, to
the claimants within a month of this order.
Let the statutory amount, already paid by the appellant-Insurance
Company, be returned to the Insurance Company.
This Misc. appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending, I.A. if any,
stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
07th October, 2025
AKT/Satendra
