Atiya Devi & Ors vs Smt. Usha Singh & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 5515 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Atiya Devi & Ors vs Smt. Usha Singh & Anr on 4 September, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            M. A. No. 208 of 2015

Atiya Devi & Ors.                             ....     .... Appellants
                           Versus
Smt. Usha Singh & Anr.                        ....   ....   Respondents
                          With
                     C.O No. 06 of 2022
Smt. Usha Singh                               ....    .... Cross Objector
                           Versus
Atiya Devi & Ors.                             ....   ....   Respondents
                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate (in M.A.208/15) Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate (in C.O. 06/22) For the Insurance Co : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate (in M.A. 208/15)

-----

Oral Order 22 / Dated : 04.09.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the Cross Objector in I.A. No. 12005 of 2025 which has been filed for ignoring the defect no. 4 in respect to non- deposit of the statutory amount while preferring the Cross Objection.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Cross Objector that the Cross Objector is the owner of the vehicle and although a direction to pay compensation has been passed against the Insurance Company as the said vehicle was under the insurance cover of the Oriental Insurance Company, however, the right of recovery has been given to the Insurance Company as the Appellate Court recorded a finding that there was no valid and effective driving license. It is submitted by learned counsel that an ex-parte proceeding was drawn during the hearing of the Motor Accident Claim Case.

3. It is contended that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the pending case and, therefore, they could not enter into appearance and file the written statement. The vehicle was being driven by the driver having valid driving license which has been brought on record on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 07.04.2025 in M.A. No. 208 of 2015 and the said driving license has been marked as Ext.-Y for identification. In this view of the matter, it is argued that only the requirement to deposit the statutory amount under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is on the party who has been saddled with liability to pay compensation and prefers appeal against the said order. Hence, the owner will not be liable to deposit the statutory amount.

4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that the provision under Section 173 of M.V. Act cross objection will come within the meaning of appeal as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2020) 11 SCC 316 (Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.) and, therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from liability to pay the statutory amount.

5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that cross objection is also an appeal and, therefore, it cannot be contended that a separate procedure will apply with respect to the objector than that of the appellant, so far as the payment of statutory amount is required under Section 173 of M.V. Act. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this issue will be finally decided at the time of judgment of Misc. Appeal.

In the meantime, the Insurance Company to file rebuttal, if any, with respect to the Ext.-Y which is the driving license filed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle.

List these cases after two weeks.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra