Jharkhand High Court
The Manager (Legal) M/S The New India ... vs Bandana Devi on 10 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:27956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No.119 of 2023
The Manager (Legal) M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited, B. P.
Agarwala Building, Dhansar, Dhanbad through Manager, The New India
Assurance Company Limited, office at Main Road, Ranchi, PO- GPO, PS-
Hindpiri, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bandana Devi, W/o Late Vakil Sah.
2. Kundan Kumar Sah, S/o Late Vakil Sah
3. Pawan Kumar, S/o Late Vakil Sah
Resp. 2 and 3 being minors are represented by their mother,
Respondent No.1 [Bandana Devi]
All R/o C/o Mukesh Kumar Saw, Devi Niwas, Brindavan Colony, PO-
KG Ashram, PS- Saraidhela District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). Permanent
R/o Village and PO- Singhnan, PS- Rajon, District- Banka (Bihar).
4. Shivanand Jha, S/o Kamland Jha, R/o Bilasi Town, PO- Deoghar, PS
and Sub Division and District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) (Owner of Bus
No.JH04M 9327). . .. ... ...Respondent(s)
With
M. A. No.163 of 2023
The Manager (Legal) M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited, B.
P. Agarwala Building, Dhansar, Dhanbad through Manager, The New
India Assurance Company Limited, office at Main Road, Ranchi, PO-
GPO, PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Uday Sah, S/o Late Sobhan Sah
2. Karu Sah, S/o Uday Sah
3. Deepak Sah, S/o Uday Sah
4. Dharmendra Sah, S/o Uday Sah
All R/o C/o Jai Prakash Sah, Sunder Nagar, Salimar, PO- Jailgora, PS-
Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) and permanent R/o Village
and PO- Singhnan, PS- Rajon, District- Banka (Bihar).
5. Shivanand Jha, S/o Kamland Jha, R/o Bilasi Town, PO- Deoghar, PS
and Sub Division and District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) (Owner of Bus
No.JH04M 9327).
. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
With
M. A. No.164 of 2023
The Manager (Legal) M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited, B.
P. Agarwala Building, Dhansar, Dhanbad through Manager, The New India
Assurance Company Limited, office at Main Road, Ranchi, PO- GPO, PS-
Hindpiri, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bandana Devi, W/o Late Vakil Sah, R/o C/o Mukesh Kumar Saw, Devi
Niwas, Brindavan Colony, PO- KG Ashram, PS- Saraidhela District-
Dhanbad (Jharkhand). Permanent R/o Village and PO- Singhnan, PS-
Rajon, District- Banka (Bihar).
2. Shivanand Jha, S/o Kamland Jha, R/o Bilasi Town, PO- Deoghar, PS
and Sub Division and District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) (Owner of Bus
No.JH04M 9327).
. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
With
M. A. No.165 of 2023
1
2025:JHHC:27956
The Manager (Legal) M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited, B.
P. Agarwala Building, Dhansar, Dhanbad through Manager, The New
India Assurance Company Limited, office at Main Road, Ranchi, PO-
GPO, PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
.... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Champa Devi, W/o Anirudh Sah
2. Anirudh Sah, S/o Lal Mohan Sah
Both R/o C/o Jai Prakash Sah, Sunder Nagar Salimar, PO- Jailgora,
PS- Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) and Permanent R/o
Village- Salimpur, PO- Baidachak, PS- Amarpur, District- Banka
(Bihar).
3. Shivanand Jha, S/o Kamland Jha, R/o Bilasi Town, PO- Deoghar,
PS and Sub Division and District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) (Owner of
Bus No.JH04M 9327).. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate
[In all the Appeals]
For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the Resp.1 to 3 : Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
[ M.A. No.119 of 2023]
For the Resp. 1 & 2 : Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. 3 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
[M.A. No.165 of 2023],
......
08/ 10.09.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. I.A. No.5463 of 2023 (in M.A. No.163 of 2023) with I.A. No.5464 of 2023
(in M.A. No.164 of 2023).
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants on the aforesaid I.As. for
condonation of delay of 134 days in preferring both the aforesaid Misc.
Appeals.
Learned counsel for the claimants/ Respondents has not raised any
serious objection.
Considering the grounds taken, the prayer made in both the
Interlocutory applications is allowed and delay of 134 days in preferring
both the aforesaid Misc. Appeals is allowed.
Both the I.As. stand disposed of.
M. A. No.119 of 2023 with M.A. No.163 of 2023 with M.A. No.164 of 2023
with M.A. No.165 of 2023.
2. M.A. No.119 of 2023 has been preferred against the judgment/ Award
dated 30.09.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-
Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad, in Motor Accident Claims Case
No.59 of 2021.
2025:JHHC:27956
M.A. No.163 of 2023 has been preferred against the impugned
judgment/ Award dated 30.09.2022 passed by learned Principal District
Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Motor Accident
Claims Case No.66 of 2021.
M.A. No.164 of 2023 has been preferred against the impugned
judgment/ Award dated 30.09.2022 passed by learned Principal District
Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in Motor Accident
Claims Case No.65 of 2021.
M.A. No.165 of 2023 has been preferred against the impugned
judgment/ Award dated 30.09.2022 passed by learned Principal District
Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad in M. A. C. Case No.67
of 2021.
3. All the aforesaid four Misc. Appeals arise out of separate claim cases and
the impugned award of compensation passed under Section 166 M.V.
Act, with respect to a common accident that took place on 05.07.2019 at
about 3:00 p.m. involving a Tempo bearing Registration No.BR 10PA/
1543 and a Bus bearing Registration No.JH-04M /9327 resulting into
death of four persons who were travelling in the vehicle i.e. Tempo.
4. The claimants preferred separate claim case(s) and separate Award has
been passed. Aggrieved by the same, all the aforesaid four Misc.
Appeals have been preferred by the appellants- Insurance Company.
5. Since common questions of fact and law are involved, they are heard
together and are being disposed of by the common order/ judgment.
6. The facts are not in dispute.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants- M/s The New India Assurance
Company Limited submits that the main ground of challenge to the
impugned Award is regarding the breach of the terms of the insurance
policy, as the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle [which has
been adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.A on behalf of the
Insurance Company] was not valid at the time of accident and the same
was renewed after the accident i.e. on 12.07.2019, whereas the accident
took place on 05.07.2019.
8. It is submitted that the Driving licence had expired on 18.08.2018
whereas it was renewed on 12.07.2019 i.e. after a period of one year.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants [in M.A. Nos.164 of 2023 and 165 of
2023] submits that the deceased (s) was bachelor at the time of accident,
so deduction on personal living expense should be @50%, whereas the
2025:JHHC:27956
learned Tribunal has taken it to be 1/3rd, as such, the same needs
modification.
10. It is argued by learned counsel for the Respondent/ owner of the
vehicle that the law is settled that where there is a Driving Licence at the
relevant time of accident, and the driver failed to renew the same, this
will not constitute a breach of the insurance policy in terms of Section 149
of the M. V. Act. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Beli
Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr., reported in (2022) 15 SCC 572,
wherein it has been held that despite the fact that during interregnum
period when the accident took place at that time the licence had expired
and the same could not be renewed within the prescribed period then it
will not constitute a breach of the insurance policy.
11. So far the non-renewal licence is concerned, the settled position of
law is that the owner cannot be held liable for it and will not constitute a
breach of term of insurance policy. Learned Tribunal has passed a
reasoned order on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru & Ors.,
(2003) 3 SCC 338.
12. Accordingly, plea of the terms and conditions of the policy in all these
cases is not sustainable and accordingly the challenge to the impugned
judgment and award in all these appeals on this ground fails.
13. M. A. No.119 of 2023 and M.A. No.163 of 2023 being devoid of
merit stand dismissed. Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
14. So far M. A. No.164 of 2023 and M.A. No.165 of 2023 are concerned,
there is merit in the submission that in both these cases, the deceased
was a bachelor and, therefore, the dependency will be computed on
deducting @ 50% as the personal living expense of the deceased.
15. Under the circumstance in both M.A. No.164 of 2023 and M.A No.
165 of 2023, the final compensation will be as under :-
Annual income of the Rs.15,000/- + = Rs.21,000/-
deceased taking Rs. Rs.15,000/- X 40% as
Rs.15,000/- as monthly Future prospect] i.e.
income + 40% as Future 6,000/-
prospect
Annual Dependency Rs.21,000/- Minus = Rs.10,500/-
after deducting as ½ Rs.10,500/-
[being Bachelor]
Multiplier taking 18 18 Rs.10,500/-X 18
years as the age of the =Rs.1,89,000/-
deceased to be 12
2025:JHHC:27956
years at the time of the
accident
Loss of Estate, Funeral Rs.77,000/- Rs.77,000/-
Expenses and Loss of
Consortium
Total Rs.2,66,000/-
16. The appellant(s)- Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.
2,66,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till its realization to the claimant(s), in
each Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 65 and 67 of 2021. The
payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by
the Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the
Tribunal will disburse the same as per the terms fixed by it to the
claimants within two weeks.
17. It goes without saying that the amount already paid shall be
deducted in final compensation amount.
18. M.A. No.164 of 2023 and M.A. No.165 of 2023 are partly allowed,
Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
19. The statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring all the four
Misc. Appeals shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal at the earliest
so as to disburse/ adjust to the claimants.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/-
