Jharkhand High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Shakuna Devi on 15 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:28243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2015
------
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Tiwary Enclave, 35A Circular Road,
Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi represented through its Sr. Divisional
Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., P.O. and P.S. Lalpur,
District Ranchi .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Shakuna Devi, wife of Manohar Bhuiyan, resident of Village Pandakhap,
P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Chatra
2. Mushi Sao, son of Dukhan Sao, resident of Village Pitez, P.O. and P.S.
Itkhori, District Chatra
3. Manohar Bhuiyan, son of Late Bisun Bhuiyan
4. Malti Kumari, daughter of Manohar Bhuiyan
5. Ajay Kumar, son of Manohar Bhuiyan
6. Punam Kumari, daughter of Manohar Bhuiyan
Respondent Nos.4 - 6 are minor and repugnant through their father,
natural guardian (respondent no.3), all residents of Village Pandakhap,
P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Chatra
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
------
Order No. 22/ Dated : 15.09.2025
Appellant is the Insurance Company and is before this Court
against the judgment of award and compensation under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Claim Case
No.60/2010, whereby and whereunder the liability to pay compensation has
been fixed on the Insurance Company.
2. Factum of accident or the insurance is not in dispute.
3. Appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that it was the offending
vehicle Mahindra Safari, which was a commercial vehicle with a passenger
capacity of ten persons and was plying without any valid permit which was
a breach of terms of insurance policy under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. This plea was raised before the learned Tribunal however, the same has
been brushed aside by only stating that in a vehicle with 9 + 1 including
passenger capacity, permit was not required.
4. It is further submitted that it was issue of a vehicle with 18 seating
2025:JHHC:28243
capacity and from the registration certificate, which is Exhibit X/1, it will be
evident that capacity of offending vehicle was of 10 passengers.
5. Earlier notice was issued on the owner of the vehicle which has
been validly served, but none had appeared consequently, the appeal is
being heard ex-parte against the owner. Claimant has appeared and
contested the claim.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced, it is evident from
Section 66(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act that the State Government may frame
Rule under Section 96 for requirement of permit with respect to motor
vehicles adapted to carry more than 09 persons excluding the driver. Here,
from the registration certificate, it is evident that passenger capacity was 10
including the driver. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity so far in the order
passed by the learned Tribunal where liability has been fixed on the
Insurance Company to pay compensation amount.
Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly, dismissed. Interlocutory
Application, if any, is disposed of.
Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal, be
remitted to the learned Tribunal being disbursed to the claimants for
adjusting the said amount from the final compensation amount.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of Insurance
Company that Rs.5,00,000/- has already been paid vide order dated
22.06.2017 passed by this Court which has not been disputed by the learned
counsel on behalf of claimant, which will be adjusted from the final
compensation amount and the remaining amount to be paid within four
weeks of the order.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
15.09.2025
Anit
