The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Md. Isharul Haque
2025 Latest Caselaw 5474 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Md. Isharul Haque on 4 September, 2025

                                                              2025:JHHC:26821




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    M.A. No. 334 of 2014

                          ---------

      The National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional
      Office at Hindustan Building P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town-
      Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, State of Jharkhand,
      represented through its Asst. Manager, Jharkhand Legal
      Cell, National Insurance Company Ltd., Kutchery Road, P.O.
      Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi  ... ... Appellant

                          Versus

       1. Md. Isharul Haque, sonof Md.Hanif, aged about 54 years,
      resident of Millat Nagar, near Aisha Masjid, Jugsalai, P.O.
      and P.S. Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, District East
      Singhbhum, Jharkhand

       2. Md. Nizamuddin Ansari, son of Md. Allaudin Ansari,
      resident of Manihas, P.O. Kansi, P.S. Simiri, District
      Darbhanga, State of Bihar         ........ Respondents

                                 ---------

      For the Appellant    : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate

      For the Resp. No.1 : Ms. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate

                                 ---------

                          PRESENT

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                          JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 25.06.2025 Pronounced on 04.09.2025

1. The instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-The national Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 23.04.2014 passed by District Judge-III cum M.A.C.T, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 08 of 2011 whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,54,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9%

2025:JHHC:26821

per annum from date of filing of claim case within a period of 30 days.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a passenger commander Jeep (Taxi) having No. BR 7P- 1013 got overturned at Lalpur Chauk on 19.05.2009, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. Passengers who were travelling in the said jeep got seriously injured and were taken to the hospital. One of the passenger namely Ahmadi Begum (since deceased) who also got injured was referred to D.M.C.H, Darbhanga due to her serious condition and during her treatment she succumbed to injury.

3. An F.I.R. regarding above said incident has been got registered being Singhwara P.S. Case No. 77/09 under section 279/337/338 of IPC. Thereafter, due investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted against one Rajdeo Manjhi, driver of offending Jeep (Taxi), bearing registration no. BR 7P 1013. The respondent/claimant, who happens to be husband of the deceased- Ahmadi Begum, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act, 1988).

4. The owner of the offending Jeep (Taxi) and appellant- The national Insurance Company Limited had been made opposite parties in the said application. Record received from Tribunal further reveals that owner of the offending Jeep (Taxi) chose not to appear before the Tribunal even after paper publication of the notice and thereafter, case proceeded ex-parte against the owner of the offending Jeep (Taxi), however, Insurance Company filed W.S. and contested the claim.

5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, claimant himself got examined as A.W.-1 who happens to be husband of the deceased and reiterated the fact that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep (Taxi), it

2025:JHHC:26821

overturned and the deceased succumbed to injury. Claimant further brought on record following documents :-

Ext. 1- Certified Copy of F.I.R.

Ext.2- Certified Copy of Charge-sheet.

Ext. 'X'- Xerox copy of Post-mortem Report.

6. On behalf of opposite party, O.P.W. - 1,Vishwajeet Mukherjee, Head Assistant at the office of Insurance Company Zonal office Jamshedpur got examined who proved the report regarding the Driving License submitted by one Sri B.N.L Das, who happens to be investigator and got the same marked as Exhibit -A. Also, Original Certificate of D.T.O has been marked as Exhibit - B.

7. After analyzing the material available on record, the Learned Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 23.04.2014 and thereby directed the appellant-The National Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.2,54,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from date of filing of claim case.

8. Being dissatisfied with the above said impugned award dated 23.04.2014, the appellant- The National Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal and challenged the award on the point that there was no valid Driving License to drive the offending Jeep (Taxi) and drew attention of this Court towards Exhibit - A and submitted that the report regarding the Driving License submitted by one Sri B.N.L Das, investigator, who has given report that the said Driving License was only for driving Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V) and submitted that the offending Jeep (Taxi) falls within the category of public transport vehicle and, as such, endorsement of PMV badge is required to be mentioned in the said D.L.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-The National Insurance Company Limited has further submitted that there was no valid permit to run the offending Jeep (taxi) and therefore, liability cannot be foisted upon the appellant-The National

2025:JHHC:26821

Insurance Company Limited on account of breach of terms and conditions and, therefore, the liability is that of the owner and on the above premise right to recovery is prayed.

10. As far as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is in excess and multiplier of 11 has been applied while considering age of deceased as per the P.M report, is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.. Further, interest @ 9% simple interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is in excess which ought to be @ 6% simple interest from the date of the application till its realization.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent/Claimant submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation by taking into consideration all the factors, in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and thus, a suitable order may be passed in the light of these above Judgments.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. Despite valid service of notice, the owner of the Jeep (Taxi) having registration no. BR 7P 1013 has chosen not to participate in the present proceeding and thus, this court proceeds ex parte against the owner.

14. There is finding of the learned Tribunal qua the driving license on the basis of Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B which has been brought on record by appellant-National Insurance Company.

Exhibit-A is Driving License verification report submitted by one Sri B.N.L Das who happens to be investigator .This report does not speak about the endorsement regarding Public Service Vehicle (PSV) and badge but found mention of

2025:JHHC:26821

authorization to drive Light motor vehicle (LMV). Exhibit-B is the Original Certificate of D.T.O. which does not speak about the endorsement regarding Public Service Vehicle (PSV) and badge. Both the exhibits in the form of report only affirm the validation of Driving License that it was valid at the time of fateful incident.

15. Record reveals that O.P.W.-1,Vishwajeet Mukherjee, Head Assistant at the office of Insurance Company Zonal office, Jamshedpur in his evidence has categorically stated that Driving License of the driver found mention of only Light motor vehicle (LMV) but, endorsement of P.L.V is must for driving heavy vehicle which did not find mention in the said D.L.

16. This court finds that there is no material qua endorsement regarding Public Vehicle (PV) badge on the said D.L. has been put forth by the appellant-Insurance Company. Record of the Tribunal reveals that unladed weight of the said offending Jeep (taxi) was 1420 kg excluding the capacity of 11 persons and the driver of the said vehicle was holding a valid D.L for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).

17. It is apposite to refer herein the Constitution bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95 wherein it has been held that there is no requirement of additional authorization for a transport vehicle class weighing under 7500 Kg if driver holds a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads hereunder :-

181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the "transport vehicle" class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

2025:JHHC:26821

181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a "transport vehicle", does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving "transport vehicles" would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle".

18. Considering the above legal proposition and fact in hands, this court is of considered view that weight of the said offending Jeep (taxi) was 1420 kg having capacity including driver was 11 persons. Even if all 11 persons as passengers got into the said Jeep (Taxi),it should not exceeds the gross weight of vehicle above 7500kg ,thus, driver in the present case having a valid Driving License for L.M.V does not require any additional endorsement for driving the said Jeep(Taxi) as Transport/Public vehicle and, as such holding a valid Driving License.

19. As far as issue of permit is concerned, at para- 13 of written statement, Insurance Company has contended that the offending Jeep(taxi) was plying without having a valid permit and has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Learned Tribunal framed two issues i.e Issue no. IV- for valid and effective D.L to drive the vehicle and Issue no. -V whether owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Both the issues IV and V were taken together and the Tribunal negates issue IV on denying the requirement of PLV badge and holding that the driver owes effective and valid D.L and on the basis of same negates that issue of violation of terms and condition of Insurance Policy, favoring the Claimants.

20. It transpires that appellant Insurance Company has not brought any evidence on record before the tribunal as to offending vehicle was being plied without having permit. Even

2025:JHHC:26821

the witness O.P.W.1 has not uttered a word regarding the fact that said vehicle was having no permit. No report from Regional/District Transport Authority qua the permit has been brought on record on behalf of Insurance Company. On the basis of the pleading (W.S), no presumption can be drawn by this Court that the said Jeep (Taxi) was plying without the permit.

21. As far as age of deceased is concerned, from the impugned judgment it transpires that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier considering the age of the Claimant instead of the age of deceased while computing the compensation. The age of deceased as found mention in the PM report is 56 years whereas in the claim petition and in evidence of witness A.W- 1, the age of deceased has been mentioned as 50 years. In view of Sunita v. Vinod Singh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 586 wherein it has held that in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report.

22. In the present case, accident took place on 19.05.2009 and claim petition U/s 166 M.V. Act has been filed in the year 2011 and in the claim petition applicant (husband of the deceased) has given his age as 54 years and an affidavit dated 19.09.2012 filed in the evidence of applicant/claimant shows his age as 55 years. So, husband of the deceased (Applicant) would be 52 years of age in the year 2009 when accident took place. From this angle also, 50 years of age of the deceased as given by applicant, in the claim application and in his evidence appears to be more probable. It is difficult for this Court to take age as mentioned in P.M. report on account of fact that in the same column "Hindu female aged about 56 years (approx.)" is written. Needless to say that from the name of the deceased and her husband, it is clear that they are not the Hindu and age mentioned in the Post Mortem is approximate

2025:JHHC:26821

age of the victim. Thus, age mentioned in the PM report does not appear to be authentic one, therefore, oral evidence regarding age of deceased will prevail and 13 as multiplier is applicable in view of Sarla Verma(Supra).

23. As far as quantum is concerned, it transpires that the Tribunal failed to award the claimant compensation under the heading future prospect and conventional head which ought to be 25% and Rs 70,000/- respectively, in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(Supra). If this court would compute the quantum of compensation afresh in consonance with Sarla Verma(Supra) and Pranay Sethi(Supra) as discussed above then the new enhanced compensation will be definitely higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal .

24. It is apposite to mention herein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that if the compensation awarded by the High Court is higher than the Tribunal then the High Court will dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insure and it is not permissible to the High Court to enhance the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under :-

8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer.

Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

25. Considering the above legal proposition, this court is of considered view that compensation should and could not be

2025:JHHC:26821

enhanced in the present matter as the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company and not by the Claimant.

26. It has also brought to the notice of this Court that no amount has been deposited by the appellant-National Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellant-National Insurance Company is directed to comply the award within a period of 45 days from today by depositing the amount before the concerned Tribunal.

27. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be 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 claimants by the learned Tribunal/executing court after notice and due verification.

28. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 334 of 2014, is hereby, dismissed, with aforesaid directions.

29. Let LCR be consigned to the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 04.09.2025 Rajnish/-A.F.R.