Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Mostt. Gayatri Devi on 29 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 621 of 2018
National Insurance Company Limited, Mahabir Complex, Maharana Pratap
Chowk, Jhumaritelaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumaritelaiya, Koderma, duly represented
through its Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,Jharkhand
Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Post Office-G.P.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi-834 001.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Mostt. Gayatri Devi, W/O-Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar Mahto
2. Dashrath Prasad S/o- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar Mahto
3. Abhishek Kumar S/o- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar Mahto
4. Menka Kumari, D/o- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar Mahto
(Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the Minor son and minor daughter of Late Shibu
Mahto @ Sheokumar Mahto, represented through their natural guardian and
mother respondent no. 1, Mostt. Gayatri Devi)
All are residents of Village-Jinga, P.O. Jinga, P.S. Mufasil, District-Hazaribag.
5. Shobhi Yadav, s/o Late Raut @ Richho Yadav
Resident of village Chagalbar, P.O. Mandro, P.S. Hirodih, District - Giridih.
6.Ramkumar Yadav, s/o- Baldeo Raut Resident of village - Chagalbar, P.O.
Mandro, P.S. Hirodih, District - Giridih.
... .... Respondents
With
M. A. No. 166 of 2021
1. Mostt. Gayatri Devi, Aged about 44 year, W/O-Late Shibu Mahto @
Sheokumar Mahto,
2. Dashrath Prasad, Aged about 32 years, S/O- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar
Mahto,
3. Abhishek Kumar, Aged about 18 years, S/O- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar
Mahto,
4. Menka Kumari, Aged about 27 years, D/O- Late Shibu Mahto @ Sheokumar
Mahto,
All are resident of Village-Jinga, P.O.- Jinga, P. S. Mufasil, District-Hazaribag
(Jharkhand). .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Shobhi Yadav, S/O- Late Raut @ Richho Yadav, Resident of village-
Chagalbar, P.O.- Mandro, P.S- Hirodih, District-Giridih, (Driver),
2. Ramkumar Yadav, S/O- Baldeo Raut, R/O Village Chagalbar, P.O.- Mandro,
P.S- Hirodih, District-Giridih, (Owner),
3. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Mahabir Complex, Maharana Pratap
Chowk, Jhumaritelaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Jhumaritelaiya, Distt.-Koderma.
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
In M.A. No.621 of 2018
For the Appellants :Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Kant Thakur, Advocate
2025:JHHC:32566
In M.A. No.166 of 2021
For the Appellants :Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Kant Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No. 13 / Dated : 29.10.2025.
1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award of
compensation in Claim Case No. 41/2012 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act,
whereby and whereunder liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company
to pay compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum and in
the event of default @ 9% per annum.
2. The Insurance-Company is in appeal in M.A. No.621 of 2018 against the
award of compensation, whereby and whereunder, liability has been fixed on
it, whereas the claimants have preferred M.A. No.166 of 2021 for
enhancement of compensation.
3. The main plank of argument advanced on behalf of the Insurance-Company
is two folds. Firstly, the offending vehicle which was under its insurance
cover, was a truck and was a commercial vehicle, but not a chit of paper has
been filed either on behalf of the owner of the claimant that it was plying
under a valid permit. Secondly, it is argued that a driving licence has been
adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.-X/3 for identification and from its
bare perusal, it will be evident that the driving licence was valid up to 1912
and 1996, whereas accident took place on 12.10.2011.
4. In this view of the matter, there was a fundamental breach of insurance policy
in terms of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and therefore, the owner was liable
to pay compensation amount. It is further contended that the interest awarded
is not as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dharampal v. UP State Road Transport, III 2008 ACC (1) interest should
have been awarded at 7.5% per annum
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the owner of the vehicle-
respondent no. 6 that as per the annexure-2 filed on behalf of the Insurance-
Company, the driving licence was renewed for another three years.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that there is a merit with
regard to the plea of breach of insurance policy as no valid permit has been
adduced into evidence to show that the vehicle was being plied on valid
permit. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018) 7 SCC 558
2025:JHHC:32566
Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Limited
& Ors. at para 24 that the onus to bring the permit on record is on owner of
the vehicle and in the event of failure to discharge the onus, it can be inferred
that there was a fundamental breach of insurance policy. Therefore, the
Insurance-Company will be liable to pay the compensation amount, but it will
have a right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle
(respondent no. 6).
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that a meagre monthly
income of Rs.3000/- has been taken and future prospects has not been
awarded by the learned Tribunal. Further, the compensation awarded under
non-conventional head is also not in accordance with the principle of law as
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
8. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find merit for enhancement
of compensation as no amount has been awarded under the head of future
prospects.
9. Under the circumstance, taking age of the deceased to be about 40 years, and
being self-employed, the claimants will be entitled to enhancement of 40%
as future prospects.
Annual Income = Rs.3000/- X 12 Rs.36,000/-
Future Prospect Rs.36,000/- X 40% Rs.14,400/-
After adding annual income and Rs.36,000 + Rs.14,400 =Rs.50,400/-
future prospect
Personal and living expense is taken as Rs.12,600/-
1/4th
After deducting 50,400-12,600 Rs.37,800/-
Multiplier of 15 taking the age of the Rs. 5,67,000/-
deceased to be 40 as per post-mortem
report
Funeral expense Rs.70,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,37,000/-
10. Insurance Company is directed to make payment of Rs. Rs.6,37,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, within a
month of the order, which shall be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal
on terms fixed by it. Insurance Company shall have a right of recovery against
the owner of the vehicle.
Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the
claimants.
2025:JHHC:32566
M.A. No. 621 of 2018 and M.A. No. 166 of 2021 are accordingly
allowed.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/Abha/ -
Uploaded
31.10.2025
