[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manager vs Arti Devi Wife Of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay ... on 15 January, 2026
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 272 of 2023
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, CB-3 Ranchi Dangra Toli
Chowk, Purlia Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, PO.O. Ranchi, District -
Ranchi, through Deputy Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd, having its Office at Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S.
Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi (Opp. Party No. 4) .... Appellant
Versus
1. Arti Devi wife of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar
2. Ayush Kumar son of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay
Kumar
3. Archana Kumari, daughter of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @
Bijay Kumar,
(Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are minors represented through their
mother being natural guardian as their next friend) All residing at
Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla
(Applicant/ Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively)
4. Sanjay Sahu Son of Gyani Sahu resident of Village Jairaigi, P.S.
Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla
(Ostensible Owner of the offending vehicle Reg. No.UP 64A-
4376)
(Opp. Party No. 1)
5. Awadh Prasad son of Sanjay Sahu (Driver) resident of Village
Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Driver)
Opposite Party No.2)
6. Arun Kumar Prasad son of Late Heeralal Prasad resident of village
Ganga Nagar. Badri Bhawan Gali, Ratu Road, P.S Sukhdeo Nagar,
P.O. & District- Ranchi
(Registered owner of Jeep UP 64A-4376)
(Opposite Party No.3)
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1,2&3: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
---------
12/Dated: 15.01.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken
up for final disposal.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
3. This is because it arises out of an accident which took place in
the year 2008, in which Bijay Sahu, aged 40 years, lost his life.
4. His widow and two minor children instituted a claim petition, in
which they were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,79,600/- by the
impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2023.
5. Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company, submitted that in this case, the insured vehicle, i.e. Jeep
bearing Registration No. UP 64A-4376 was not involved in the
accident. He submitted that this is in fact the stand taken by the
registered owner, i.e. Respondent No. 6 in this present appeal, in his
written statement. He submitted that in collusion with the Motor
Vehicle Inspector and other police authorities, this vehicle was shown
as involved, but, in fact, the same was not at all involved. Mr Alok Lal
submitted that on this ground, there was no question of fastening any
liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.
6. Mr Alok Lal, without prejudice to the above, submitted that there
was evidence that the insured vehicle was a private vehicle, but at the
time of the accident, the same was given out for hire. The status of the
deceased Bijay Sahu was that of a non-gratuitous passenger or a fare-
paying passenger. Mr Alok Lal submitted that this was a clear breach of
the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, no liability could have
been foisted upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. Mr Alok Lal also tried to contend that, in this case, no evidence
was produced to show that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed a
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
valid driving license. He submitted that in the absence of evidence
about the driver having a valid driving license, no liability could have
been foisted on the appellant-Insurance Company.
8. Mr. Alok Lal fairly accepted that in a claim arising out of this
very accident, the appellant-Insurance Company settled the matter with
some other claimant in the Lok Adalat proceedings. However, he
submitted that there can be neither estoppel against the law nor equality
of illegalities. Therefore, merely because the appellant-Insurance
Company may have settled the amount with some of the claimants in
the Lok Adalat, upon coming to know of the fraud involved, the
appellant-Insurance Company cannot be compelled to perpetuate such
fraud.
9. For all the above reasons, Mr Alok Lal submitted that the
impugned judgment and award warrant interference. He submitted that
the impugned judgment and award must be set aside on the above
grounds urged by him on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.
However, without prejudice, he submitted that the award could be
modified by making a pay-and-recover order, as under no
circumstances could the liability be foisted on the appellant-Insurance
Company in this case.
10. Mr Arbind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the registered
owner, reiterated the submissions made by the registered owner, i.e.,
the 6th Respondent, in the written statement. However, without
prejudice, he submitted that even if it is held that the offending vehicle
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
was involved in the accident, still, there is no dispute that the same was
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, there was
no question of the appellant-Insurance Company refusing to indemnify
the registered owner or urging that the pay and recover order be made.
11. Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the claimants, defended
the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning reflected
therein. He submitted that no evidence was led on behalf of the
registered owner or the Insurance Company. He submitted that the onus
was clearly upon the said parties to make good the otherwise false
defences raised by them. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no
case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award except that the
impugned judgment and award failed to provide for loss of parental
consortium to the two minor children of deceased Bijay Sahu. He
submitted that it is the duty of the Court to determine an award of "just
compensation" irrespective of whether or not such compensation is
claimed. Therefore, he urged that the compensation amount be
enhanced by another Rs.80,000/- i.e. parental consortium of Rs.
40,000/- each. He relied upon Magma General Insurance Co. v.
Nanu Ram1.
12. Rival contentions now fall for our determination.
13. This is a case where Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad @ Bijay Kumar
died in a vehicular accident that took place on 10.07.2008. The
deceased was 40 years old at the time of the fatal accident. The claim
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
petition was instituted by his widow, who was then 33 years old, his
son, then 13 years old, and his daughter, then 07 years old.
14. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded
a total compensation of Rs. 4,79,600/-. along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its actual
payment.
15. Based upon the rival contentions, the following points for
determination arise in this appeal:-
(i) Whether the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing
registration No. UP 64A-4376 was at all involved in the
accident, or it was merely shown to be involved as
contended by the registered owner, i.e. Respondent No.
6 herein?
(ii) Whether the offending vehicle, though a private Jeep,
was being used for hire or reward, and further, the
deceased Bijay Sahu was a non-gratuitous or a fare-
paying passenger therein at the time of the accident?
(iii)Was the driver of the offending vehicle in possession of
a valid driving licence?
(iv) Whether driving the offending vehicle by a person
possessing no valid driving licence or using the
offending vehicle for hire or reward amounts to a
breach of the terms of the insurance policy, thereby
relieving the Insurance Company of any liability?
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
(v) Whether the impugned judgment and award is liable to
be modified for not awarding any compensation
towards parental consortium to the two minor children?
16. Insofar as the first point is concerned, while it is true that the
registered owner, i.e. the 6th respondent, in his written statement took
up a plea that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the
accident and that the same was shown as involved on account of the
collusion between one Sanjay Sahu, Motor Vehicle Inspector and the
Police authorities, still, neither the registered owner nor any other
witness deposed to this plea of non-involvement. In fact, neither the
registered owner nor the insurance company examined any witnesses
regarding such a plea.
17. There is both documentary and oral evidence on record showing
the offending vehicle's involvement in the accident. The evidence is
more than sufficient, at least for the onus to have shifted upon the
registered owner or the Insurance Company, assuming that the
Insurance Company could raise such a defense. However, the registered
owner did not bother to step into the witness box or even examine any
other witnesses in support of this theory, which was propounded in the
written statement.
18. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the Tribunal was justified
in rejecting this theory propounded by the registered owner. The
appellant-Insurance Company cannot, therefore, take advantage of this
unproven theory and seek to avoid liability. Admittedly, the offending
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, and this
point was not even disputed.
19. Accordingly, the first point for determination is liable to be
answered against the appellant and/or the 6th Respondent.
20. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, there is
again no evidence whatsoever that the offending vehicle was used for
hire or reward, or that the late Bijay Sahu was a fare-paying or non-
gratuitous passenger therein. Since the Insurance Company alleges a
breach of the insurance policy, the burden was on it to establish this
fact. No evidence was led on this aspect, or, rather, on behalf of the
Insurance Company. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified
in rejecting this defence.
21. Insofar as the third point for determination is concerned, there is
a doubt as to whether this point was even raised in the written statement
of the Insurance Company. However, assuming that such a point was
raised, then some evidence should have been led to show that the driver
of the insured vehicle possessed no licence. Some evidence could have
been produced by examining the Motor Vehicle authorities or even by
summoning the driver to depose in the matter. In the absence of all
these, the point now raised cannot be determined in favour of the
appellant-Insurance Company.
22. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it
appears that this point about the driver possessing no licence was not
even raised before the Tribunal. This is an issue requiring adjudication
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
facts. If such a point was not even raised, such a point cannot be
allowed to be raised for the first time in this appeal. In any event, even
upon allowing the appellant-Insurance Company to raise such a point,
there is no evidence to uphold such a contention. Therefore, even this
point is decided against the appellant-Insurance Company.
23. This is a case where the Tribunal has determined the total
compensation at Rs.4,79,600/- by awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of consortium. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. v.
Nanu Ram (supra) and in the case of Harpreet Kaur and Ors v.
Mohinder Yadav and Ors2, it has been held that compensation
towards consortium, be it spousal, filial or parent, has to be awarded to
each of the claimants @ Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has
committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to
award compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each to Bijay Sahu's children.
24. In such matters, a duty is cast upon the Courts to determine "just
compensation" irrespective of whether or not the claimants may have
claimed the same. This is a case where the road accident rendered Bijay
Sahu's wife a widow with the responsibility to look after the two minor
children. Possibly because she could not bring on record proper
evidence, the Tribunal has taken his notional income at only
Rs.24,000/- p.a. i.e. Rs.2000/- per month. The evidence that he is a
businessman dealing in grains has been completely overlooked. In such
circumstances, the interest of justice requires at least the addition of an
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards parental consortium, which Bijay
Sahu's two children were certainly entitled to.
25. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by enhancing the
compensation amount by a further Rs. 80,000/-. Even this enhanced
amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. The contention of the appellant-
Insurance Company regarding interest is, accordingly, rejected.
26. Mr Alok Lal submitted that the compensation amount determined
by the impugned judgment and award, along with interest @ 6% p.a., is
already deposited before the Tribunal. He submitted that, in addition,
the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited Rs. 25,000/- as a
precondition for instituting this appeal. Accordingly, he prayed for an
appropriate adjustment. Now that the compensation amount is
enhanced, this amount will be subsumed therein.
27. This Court grants liberty to the claimants, i.e. respondent nos.1, 2
and 3, to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant-Insurance
Company in the Tribunal and this Court.
28. Mr. Arun Kumar is requested to furnish the bank details of the 1st
Respondent, i.e. the widow, along with proof of identity, both in this
Court as well as in the Tribunal.
29. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the Presiding Officer of
the Tribunal, upon being satisfied, are directed to transfer the deposited
amounts to Arti Devi's bank account directly.
30. Under no circumstances should any cash withdrawals be
permitted.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040
31. This entire exercise must be completed as expeditiously as
possible and in any event within four weeks from today.
32. The Registry of this Court must immediately send a copy of this
order to the Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal at Gumla after referencing
M.A.C.C. No.50 of 2019.
33. The Registry must note that this is a compensation case in respect
of an accident which took place in the year 2008 and, therefore, must
not delay the matter for any reason.
34. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
balance compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal
at Gumla within six weeks from today.
35. Upon deposit, the Tribunal must transfer even this amount to Arti
Devi's account immediately.
36. The appellant-Insurance Company must file a compliance report
in this Court after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the
claimants, latest by the 26th of March 2026.
37. If no such compliance report is filed, the Registry is directed to
place the matter for directions.
38. The appeal and the interim applications are disposed of in the
above terms.
39. No order for costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
January 15, 2026
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2
Uploaded on 20.01.2026
