Jharkhand High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Nutan Devi Wife Of Late Ramashray Yadav on 30 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 419 of 2016
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570 Rectifier House, Naigaum
Cross Road, Wadala West Mumbai-400031, India through its representative Sri
Jitendra Kumar Pandit, S/o Sri Rajendra Pandit, R/o 47(A)/12, RK Ghoshal
Road, P.O. & P.S. Kasba, District Kolkata, PIN 700042, West Bengal
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Nutan Devi wife of Late Ramashray Yadav,
2. Vishal Kumar
3. Rishav Kumar, Both minor sons of late Ramashray Yadav and represented by
their natural guardian adlitum mother Nutan Devi, All residents of Village-
Mirsurhiya, P.O. and P.S. Badahariya, District-Sivan and permanent resident of
and presently residing D/o Sri Chakradhar Yadav of village Pasai, P.O. and P.S.
Poraiyahat, District-Godda.
4. Md. Rafat Numani, Son of Md. Rehan @ Md. Rahim, resident of At H.No.3,
Road No.05, Azad Nagar, Mango, P.O. Azad Nagar, Jamshedpur, P.S. Mango,
District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. (Owner of the offending vehicle).
5. Ashan Ahmad, S/o A. Mahmood resident of At and Ρ.Ο., P.S. Sherghati,
District-Gaya (Bihar) (Driver of the offending truck).
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Res. 1-3 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
Md. Faiyaj Alam Advocate
Mr. Belal Ashram Khan, Advocate
------
Order No. 13 / Dated : 30.10.2025.
1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in MACT Case No.
36/2009 (45 of 2012), whereby and whereunder, the liability to pay
compensation has been fixed on the Insurance Company.
2. Tribunal recorded the finding of fact with regard to factum of accident, in
which deceased Ramashray Yadav while being on duty at a check post
was overrun by a Truck bearing Registration No. UP 67C 5929 which was
carrying coal at the time of accident.
3. It is not in dispute that the said offending vehicle was under the insurance
cover of the appellant Insurance Company.
4. The instant misc. appeal has been preferred on two counts.
Firstly, the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and was being plied without
a valid permit which resulted in fundamental breach of the policy of the
2025:JHHC:32686
insurance under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and, therefore, it is
contended that the Insurance Company was absolved from any liability to
pay compensation or to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
Secondly, it is argued that the vehicle was carrying coal without any valid
paper, meaning thereby, it was being used for commission of an offence
and when the police personnel signaled it to stop, it was overrun. In this
view of the matter, it was the owner/driver of the vehicle who was solely
responsible to pay the compensation amount and not the appellant
Insurance Company. This being so, it not only breach of insurance policy,
but will also render the contract of insurance as void ab initio because of
the illegality and the owner will be liable for it. It is also submitted that
the transit challan was also not produced which was mandatory as per
Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant is before this Court and has defended
the impugned order.
6. So far the owner of the vehicle is concerned, he was impleaded in the
misc. appeal as respondent no. 4 and Vakalatnama has already been filed
on his behalf but he had neither appeared before the Tribunal nor before
this Court.
7. This Court is of the view that owner of the vehicle being impleaded as a
party, the onus to lead evidence that it was plying under a valid permit,
was on him. Having failed to lead any evidence in this regard, it naturally
follows that the vehicle was driven without any valid permit resulting in
fundamental breach of the term of insurance policy under Section 149(2)
of the M.V. Act and will consequently have a right of recovery against the
owner of the vehicle.
8. It cannot, however escape from the liability to pay compensation to the
Petitioner on the ground that the offending vehicle was illegally
transporting coal. Claimants in the present case are indisputably the heirs
and descendants of the constable who lost his life while attempting to stop
the truck which was transporting coal without any valid document. A
separate police case was registered being Bishnugarh PS Case No. 32 of
2009 under Section 304 and 353 of the IPC.
9. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the said case has ended in
conviction. The permit was also produced which was marked as Ext.4.
2025:JHHC:32686
There is a presumption of innocence so far the guilt is not proved. The
plea, therefore that the vehicle was illegally transporting coal, therefore it
was absolved of any liability to pay compensation is therefore not tenable.
The argument regarding murder cannot be considered at this stage as the
case has been registered under Section 304 and not under Section 302 of
the IPC.
10. I do not find any infirmity in the award of compensation.
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
Statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be remitted
to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants and adjusted against the
final compensation amount.
I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
01.11.2025
