[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Deep Mala Devi Daughter Of Late Kashi ... on 20 February, 2026
2026:JHHC:5256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 572 of 2019
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Dumka Branch P.O., P.S. &
District-Dumka through Deputy Manager, T.P. HUB Having its office at
Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali P.O. & District Ranchi
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Deep Mala Devi daughter of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi
Prasad Lala
2. Munni Devi wife of Late of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi Prasad
Lala
Both Residing at Village & P.O. Madhupur, (Gwalpara) P.S.
Maheshpur, District- Pakur, At present residing at Village & P.O.
Dangalpara, P.S. Dumka (Town) District-Dumka.
3. Sumit Kumar Lala adopted son of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi
Prasad Lala (Intervener) residing at Village & P.O. Madhupur, (Gwalpara)
P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur. (Claimant Nos 1 to 3 respectively)
4. Meena Devi wife of Ram Kishun Sah @ Ram Krishna Saha
resident of Village & P.O. Ganeshpur, (Mohulpahari) P.S. Sikaripara
District- Dumka (Owner of Bus) ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For Resp.1 & 3: Miss. Tannu Shree, Advocate
For Resp. No. 2: Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
For Resp. No. 4: Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate.
---------
07 /Dated: 20.02.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 110 days in instituting this
Miscellaneous Appeal. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and we
are satisfied that this delay has been sufficiently explained.
-1 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5256
3. Accordingly, we condone the delay and disposed of this I.A.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 572 of 2019
4. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant hands in D.D. of
Rs. 27,01,035/- drawn in favour of Registrar General, Jharkhand High
Court, Ranchi vide D.D. No. 489288 of Axis Bank Ltd., which was to be a
precondition for any grant of any interim relief. This demand draft is
accepted by the Court Master, who shall now hand it over to the Registry.
6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that in respect of the accident of 14.07.2011, the son of the
deceased filed an F.I.R. in which he alleged that his adoptive father was
sitting on the roof of the offending bus and on account of sudden braking,
was thrown of the roof and suffered fatal injuries. However, during the
evidence, this specific stance was altered and this widow, the adopted
son and some other witnesses deposed to the deceased sitting inside the
bus and being thrown out of the bus due to the sudden braking. These
witnesses alleged that the deceased was thrown out of the driver side
door and this stance amounts to a complete U-turn, which ought not to be
believed.
7. Mr. Alok Lal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Giriraj
Prasad Agrawal and others, Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 against the
Full Bench decision of this Court in Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. Parwati
Devi and others, (2005) SCC OnLine Jhar 199.
-2 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5256
8. Mr. Alok Lal submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated
29.01.2025 disposing of Misc. Appeal No. 307 of 2008 and connected
matters.
9. Based upon the above decisions, Mr. Alok Lal submitted that this is
a fit case where no liability should be saddled on the appellant-Insurance
Company or in any event, a pay and recover order must be made entitling
the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the
owner of the insured vehicle.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Insurance Company chose to lead no evidence before the Tribunal. He
submitted that almost 3 to 4 witnesses have deposed that the deceased
was sitting inside the bus and was thrown out of the bus due to the
sudden braking. They have deposed that F.I.R. is not evidence and
nothing was elucidated during cross examination of the first informant.
Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned award may not be interfered
with.
11. Rival contentions now fall for my determination.
12. In this case, the widow of the victim Munni Devi has examined
herself. Though, she deposed to the driver door of the bus opening
suddenly and her husband being thrown out from the bus, admittedly, she
was not a witness to the accident.
13. Azfarul Sheikh (CW-2) and Musleuddin Sheikh (CW-3) are eye
witnesses to the accident. They have clearly deposed to the gate of the
bus suddenly opening on account of the negligent driving of its driver, and
the deceased, who was sitting inside the bus as a passenger, being
-3 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5256
thrown out, sustaining injuries and subsequently expired at Burdwan
hospital. They were cross-examined, but nothing was elicited from them
to the effect that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and
not inside the bus.
14. Sumit Kumar Lala (IW-1), who intervened in the matter, claimed to
be the deceased's adopted son. He is the one who filed the F.I.R. As
regards the accident, he deposed that when the bus reached near the
D.C., due to a heavy jerk, his father was thrown out of the bus and
sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. Admittedly, he was not an
eyewitness and therefore, not much should be read into his F.I.R. The
F.I.R, in any event, is not strictly speaking evidence, and during the cross-
examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from him regarding
his ambiguous statement in the F.I.R.
15. The decisions relied upon by Mr Alok Lal no doubt suggest that,
where passengers are travelling on the roof of a bus, a pay and recover
order can be made. However, here, there is no clear or categorical
evidence about the deceased travelling on the roof of the bus; at least two
eyewitnesses have deposed that the deceased was travelling inside the
bus and was thrown out due to the negligent driving of the bus driver.
That the testimony has not been demolished during the cross-
examination. Therefore, the decisions relied upon would not apply in the
absence of the foundational facts being established.
16. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company will now have to
be paid to the claimants, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Miss Tanu
Shree, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Md.
Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, state that they will
-4 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5256
provide the Registry with identity documents and bank details within two
weeks. The Registry should transfer the compensation amount as per the
apportionment in the impugned award to the respective claimants within a
maximum of three weeks of such details being supplied. If any accrued
interest is due, it should also be paid to the claimants proportionately.
17. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest, if
any, deposited by the Insurance Company should be refunded to the
Insurance Company since the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company states that this amount has not been adjusted when the
demand draft for the compensation amount awarded in the impugned
award was drawn.
18. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for
costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are
disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
February 20, 2026
N.A.F.R.
APK/VK
Uploaded on 24.02.2026
-5 of 5-
