[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Surendra Singh on 27 February, 2026
2026:JHHC:5942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 284 of 2015
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Having its Branch Office at 87,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, P.O. & P.S. Head Post Office, Fort Bombay
- 400001, and its Branch Office at Rajdhani Building, Dharamshala
Road, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, Daltonganj.
... Appellant
Versus
1. Surendra Singh, son of late Ram Lakhan Singh
2. Smt. Asha Devi, wife of Surendra Singh
both are residents of village Baniya Bandh, P.O. Hanterganj
P.S. Hanterganj, District Chatra,
3. Daya Shankar, son of Sri Faujdar, resident of Nai Mandi,
Bharatpur, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur
(Rajsthan).
4. Yogendra Kumar, son of Basudeo Sharma, resident of
Kampur, Gate, Bharatpur, P.O. & P.S. Sadar District - Bharatpur, at
present Ram Bag, Chauraha, Admatola, Distt. Agra (U.P.).
... Respondents
With
C.O. No. 35 of 2021
1. Surendra Singh present age about 64 years son of late Ram
Lakhan Singh
2. Smt. Asha Devi present age about 54 years wife of Surendra
Singh
R/o Village -Baniya Bandh Po & P.S.- Hunterganj, Distt.-
Chatra.
..... Cross Objectors
Vs.
1. New India Assurance company .L.T.D Having its Branch office
at 87 Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Fort Bombay - 400001 and its
Rajdhani Building Dharmshala Road Daltonganj PO+PS+District
Daltonganj.
2. Daya Shankar S/O Sri Faujdar, R/O Nai Mandi Bharatpur PO-
Bharatpur, Ps- Sadar, District Bharatpur, State - Rajasthan
3. Yogendra Kumar s/o Basudeo Sharma, R/o - Kampur Gate
PO- Bharatpur, Ps-Sadar, District -Bharatpur state Rajasthan, At
present Address - Rambag chauraha Adamtola Po & Ps Agra,
District- Agra, state - Uttarpradesh ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mrs. K.M. Poonam Varma, Advocate
[Misc. Appeal No. 284 of 2015]
-1 of 6-
2026:JHHC:5942
For the C.O. : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mrs. K.M. Poonam Varma, Advocate
For the Insurance Company: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
[C.O. No. 35 of 2021]
---------
20/Dated: 27.02.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal and Cross objections are directed against
judgment and Award dated 18.04.2015 in Motor Vehicles Claim Case
No. 67 of 2006.
3. Mr. G. C. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company, submitted that in this case the insurance policy was never
issued by the appellant-Insurance Company either from its Agra
branch or the Daltonganj Branch. Evidence to this effect was
provided by the Branch Manager. Therefore, there was no question of
fastening any liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.
4. Mr Jha pointed out that even the Court wrote to the Agra
Branch, and the response was that the cover note was not issued by
the Agra Branch. The Manager of the Insurance Company deposed
about writing to the Agra Branch and receiving a response that the
cover note in question was not issued by the Agra Branch. He
submitted that this crucial evidence has been overlooked and
therefore, the impugned Award, to the extent it renders the appellant-
Insurance Company liable, must be interfered with.
5. Mr Vijay Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the claimants,
submits that in the pleadings, there was no categorical denial
regarding the Insurance/cover note. He submitted that a mere letter
from the Agra Branch cannot constitute evidence. No witness from
-2 of 6-
2026:JHHC:5942
the Agra Branch was ever examined. The plea was that the old
records are not traceable. Accordingly, he submitted that no case
was made out to allow the Insurance Company's appeal.
6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma submitted that in this case considering
the law laid down in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another
vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 and
Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244
the income of the deceased who was nine years old should have
been taken at Rs.30,000/- and not Rs.15,000/- as prescribed in the
Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He
submitted that the compensation for funeral expenses and loss of
estate is meagre and not consistent with the legal position. He
submitted that no proper compensation has been paid towards loss of
parental consortium.
7. Accordingly, Mr Vijay Kumar Sharma submitted that the
Insurance Company's Appeal be dismissed and the claimant's Cross
Objection should be allowed.
8. Rival contentions now fall for my determination.
9. In this case, the Insurance Company filed its written statement
in response to the claimants' statement of claim. Therein, no
categorical denial is found about the cover note or the Insurance
policy. The denials are quite vague and suggest that the records were
not traceable, and therefore, the Insurance Company was unable to
confirm or deny the veracity of the insurance cover.
10. Even the Manager's evidence was mainly to the effect that the
records were not traceable or were old, and there was no
-3 of 6-
2026:JHHC:5942
requirement to maintain them. The evidence is quite sketchy and not
categorical that the cover note was some forgery or fraudulent
document.
11. After the evidence was closed, the Court wrote to the Agra
office, and the response was that this cover note had not been issued
by the Agra office. However, despite the opportunity, no witness from
the Agra office was ever examined. The Manager of the Daltonganj
office simply deposed that he had also written to the Agra office and
received a reply to the effect that the cover note had not been issued
by the Agra office.
12. The mere fact that the letter was marked as an exhibit in
evidence does not amount to admitting or proving the contents of
such a letter. The contents had to be proved by a responsible officer
at the Agra office. If any witness from the Agra office had to be
examined, the claimants or even the owner of the insured vehicle
would have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness and
test the veracity of their statement.
13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Catalyst Trusteeship
Limited v. Ecstasy Realty Limited, 2026 INSC 186, held that
merely because a document is not traceable in the records several
years after its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged
or that it is a false document.
14. Considering all the above circumstances, the Insurance
Company's plea of complete exoneration cannot be accepted.
15. Accordingly, the Insurance Company's Appeal is liable to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-4 of 6-
2026:JHHC:5942
16. So far as Cross Objections are concerned, the Tribunal has
taken the annual income of the deceased, who was nine years old at
the time of his demise in the road accident on 06.06.1996, as Rs.
15,000/-. This is because the claim was under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
17. Although the Schedule refers to the annual income of Rs.
15,000/-, considering the law laid down in Kishan Gopal (supra) and
Kurvan Ansari (supra), it would be reasonable to consider the
deceased's annual income at Rs. 25,000/-.
18. By applying the formula under Section 163-A, the deduction of
1/3rd would be in order. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate
compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each would have to be paid. Towards
the parental consortium, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- will have to be
paid.
19. Mr Jha submitted that, since the deceased was a 9-year-old
bachelor, the entire compensation should be paid to the mother
rather than the father. Compensation to the consortium, loss of
estate, and funeral expenses to the extent of 50 per cent will have to
be awarded to the father.
20. Based on the above, the total compensation would amount to
Rs. 3,43,124/-, and not Rs. 1,44,500/-as awarded by the Tribunal.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest
on the said amount is apportioned in favour of the father, Surendra
Singh. The remaining amount, along with interest accrued thereon, is
apportioned in favour of the mother, Smt. Asha Devi. The order for
-5 of 6-
2026:JHHC:5942
payment of interest remains in effect. The Cross Objection is allowed
to the above extent.
21. The Insurance Company should pay the compensation amount
now awarded (including enhancement interest etc.) to the claimants
within two months from today. The Insurance Company must deposit
the compensation amount, including interest, in this Court within two
months from today, after giving due intimation to the learned counsel
for the respondent. The learned counsel for the claimant must also
provide the claimant's identity and bank details to the Registry so that
the Registry can directly transfer this amount into the claimant's bank
account. Under no circumstances should the amount be paid to the
claimants other than by way of bank transfer.
22. The Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of in the above
terms. No costs.
23. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of the order.
24. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are
disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
27.02.2026
APK/VK
Uploaded on 01.03.2026
-6 of 6-
