Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through ... vs Rajani Devi on 4 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:26944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 250 of 2015
National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, B.P. Agarwala
Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar, Dist.-Dhanbad .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Rajani Devi, W/o Late Anil Rabidas
2. Basudeo Das, S/o Late Anil Rabidas
3. Ajit Das, S/o Late Anil Rabidas
4. Ram Dhani Rabi Das, S/o Late Laru Rabidas
5. Premiya Devi, W/o Ram Dhani Rabi Das, All R/o Village-Jarma
(Gansadih), P.O.-Lalpur, P.S.-Putki, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
6. Ashok Kr. Jindal, R/o House No. 30, Rohrabandh, Moti Nagar,
P.O. & P.S.-Sindri, Dist.-Dhanbad .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Kr. Karan, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
16 / Dated : 04.09.2025
1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 32 of 2013 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by which the liability has been
fixed on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount.
2. The facts are not in dispute that the deceased Anil Rabidas died in an
accident involving the offending vehicle. At the time of the death, the
deceased was a B.C.C.L. employee and was getting salary of Rs.
37,132/- per month. It is also not in dispute that Tipper bearing
Registration no. WB-37-9420, at the time of accident was under the
insurance cover of the appellant-Company. Accordingly, the
compensation was assessed and the liability was fixed on the Insurance
Company.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the owner had
appeared before the learned Tribunal and had also filed the written
statement, however, the driving license and permit were not produced.
Primary responsibility for producing the permit and driving license is on
the owner of the vehicle and having failed to do so, an adverse inference
was liable to be drawn that there was a fundamental breach of the policy
of insurance under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, in view the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) 7 SCC 558
(Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.) and
2025:JHHC:26944
(2018) 3 SCC 208 (Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba). It is also argued
that from the postmortem examination report (Ext.7), it will be evident
that at the time of accident the deceased was under the influence of
liquor, as smell of alcohol was found from the Viscera.
4. The original owner of the vehicle namely, Babu Ram Jindal, died during
pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his son vide order dated
01.08.2025. Thereafter, notices were issued, but he did not appear.
Consequently, the appeal is being heard ex-parte against him.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that neither the driving
license, nor the permit was produced. The onus to lead evidence in this
regard was on the owner of the vehicle, and in absence of it, a
presumption of fact can be drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act that these facts which were within the knowledge of the owner.
Having failed to produce these documents, an adverse inference can be
drawn in terms of Section 106 read with Section 114-(g) of the
Evidence Act.
6. In this view of matter, the plea of breach of insurance policy has been
validly raised, but the learned Tribunal appears to have decided Issue
No. 2 by holding that since the Insurance Company failed to produce
these documents, therefore, the condition for breach of policy was not
satisfied. This Court is of the view that learned Tribunal erred in
deciding Issue No.2 and the findings are, accordingly, set aside.
7. The Insurance Company succeeds in appeal and will have a right to
recovery against the owner of the vehicle after paying the sum to the
claimants.
8. It is contended that the entire compensation amount with interest has
been deposited before the Tribunal and 50% of the said amount has
already been disbursed. Learned Tribunal to verify and ensure the
disbursement of the said amount on proper identification of the
claimants within a month of this order. The statutory amount earlier
deposited be refunded to the Insurance Company.
This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
