[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sabita Jyotishi Wife Of Late Pitamber ... on 4 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 319 of 2025
Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd, Company Under Companies Act, and
its Policy Issuing Office at 10th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra, and its
Servicing Office (Branch Office) at GDR SIDDHA, 3RD Floor, N Road,
Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupir, Town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum
East Though its authorised signatory Kamal Jit Ray, Asst Manager
Authorised Signatory, Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd having its
Registered office at 10th Floor, Tower -A, Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, P.O. & P.S. Lower Parel, Mumbai-
400013 ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sabita Jyotishi wife of Late Pitamber Jyotishi (Mobile No. 8969693409)
2. Satakshi Jyotishi daughter of Late Pitamber Jyotishi
3. Girija Jyotishi wife of Nav Kumar Jyotishi
(Respondent Nos. 2 is minor being represented through her Mother
respondent No.1 as her natural guardian and next friend)
All Residents of Village- Mukundpur, P.O. Sangram, P.S. Potka District-
East Singhbhum PIN 831002 (Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively)
4. Keshar Majhi @ Keshar Namta son of Parmeshwar Majhi resident of
Sangram P.O. Sungram, Prabhuman Sharma son of J.P. Sharma
Resident of Qr. No. G.G.-20 Civil Township P.S. Potka (52) District East
Singhbhum. (Owner/ Rider of Motor Cycle)
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
---------
03/Dated: 04.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up upon urgent mentioning by Mr. Alok Lal,
learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. He states that the executing
court is refusing to grant any additional time and therefore, this matter
may be taken up urgently. He also made a statement that the appellant-
Insurance Company is willing to deposit the awarded amount in this
Court within some reasonable period.
2. On 06.12.2025, notices have already been issued to the
respondents on the application seeking condonation of delay of 94 days
in instituting this Appeal. Record shows that respondent Nos. 1 and 3
are appearing through a counsel. Notice is served upon respondent
No. 2, who is a minor, through her mother. The 4th respondent is the
owner of the offending vehicle and was marked as ex parte before the
Tribunal. However, if the 4th respondent is not yet served, the appellant
will have to take steps to serve the notice by all permissible modes
including 'Dasti'.
3. Mr. Lal states that the entire compensation amount, as
determined in the impugned judgment and Award would be deposited in
this Court in the name of the Registrar General, High Court of
Jharkhand, Ranchi together with interest as prescribed within four
weeks from today. This statement is accepted.
4. Based upon this statement, the proceedings for execution of the
impugned Award dated 06.09.2024 in Motor Accident Claim Case
No. 122 of 2022, pending before the learned District Judge-V-cum-
M.V.A.C.T., at Jamshedpur, shall remain stayed.
5. However, it is clarified that if the amount is not deposited within
four weeks from today, then, the stay shall stand vacated and the
executing court shall proceed with the execution proceedings. This
matter is now listed to consider the application for condonation of delay
and if delay is condoned, then to consider the admission of the appeal
on 13.03.2026.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
04.02.2026
APK/VK
