Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance ... vs Rita Devi
2025 Latest Caselaw 4743 Patna

Patna High Court

Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance ... vs Rita Devi on 16 December, 2025

Author: Jitendra Kumar

Bench: Jitendra Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Miscellaneous Appeal No.1040 of 2018
     ======================================================
     Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Uma Cinema,
     Peermohani, Kadam Kuan, Patna, Appeal and Appellant through the Asst.
     Manager & Duly Constituted Attorney/Authorized Signatory, Regional
     Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Primuhani, Patna.

                                                                 ... ... Appellant
                                        Versus

1.   Rita Devi, W/o Lt. Asharfi Ray, Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram Nagar
     Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
2.1. Pannalal Ray, S/o Late Deo Narayan Ray, Resident of Village - Ganjpar,
     (Ram Nagar Karari), P.S. - Athmal Gola, Dist. Patna.
2.2. Munni Devi, D/o Deo Narayan Ray, Resident of Village - Ganjpar, (Ram
     Nagar Karari), P.S. - Athmal Gola, Dist. Patna.
2.3. Lalita Devi, D/o Late Deo Narayan Ray, Resident of Village - Ganjpar, (Ram
     Nagar Karari), P.S. - Athmal Gola, Dist. Patna.
2.4. Pinku Devi, D/o Late Deo Narayan Ray, Resident of Village - Ganjpar, (Ram
     Nagar Karari), P.S. - Athmal Gola, Dist. Patna.
3.   Soni Kumari, D/o Lt. Asharfi Ray Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram Nagar
     Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
4.   Puja Kumari, D/o Lt. Asharfi Ray Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram Nagar
     Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
5.   Sonu Kumar, S/o Lt. Asharfi Ray Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram Nagar
     Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
6.   Babloo Kumar, S/o Lt. Asharfi Ray Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram
     Nagar Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
7.   Dabloo Kumar, S/o Lt. Asharfi Ray Resident of Village- Ganjpur, (Ram
     Nagar Karari), P.S.- Athmal Gola, Dist- Patna.
8.   Kalyan Ray, S/o Lt. Ram Chandra Ray, Resident of Village- Khirodharpur,
     P.S.- Khusroopur, Dist- Patna. (Driver)
9.   M/s Vikramshila Auto Mobile, R/o Hasdiha Road, Near Teresa School,
     Aliganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar.

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant              :     Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                          Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 :     Mr. Kameshwar Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent No. 8       :     None.
     For the Respondent No. 9       :     None.
     ======================================================
 Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025
                                           2/11




       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                     CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 16-12-2025

The present miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred against the impugned

judgment/Award dated 22.09.2017, passed by Additional District

and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Patna, in Claim Case No. 3349 of 2014, whereby learned

Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company, who is Appellant

herein, to pay Rs.7,32,000/- to the claimants, who are

Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, towards compensation with interest @

7% per annum.

2. The factual background of the case is that the Claim

Case bearing No. 3349 of 2014 was filed against the driver,

owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle bearing

Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166. The claimants are wife,

mother, sons and daughters of the deceased/Ashrafi Rai.

3. As per the claim petition, the deceased/Asharfi Ray

was coming to home from Barh in a tempo on 31.01.2014 along

with his relatives. When the Tempo reached near village -

Dahaur, one Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-

2166, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Tempo,

resulting into grievous injury to Asharfi Ray, who died in course Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

of the treatment. Subsequently, Barh P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014

was lodged against the driver of the Pick Up Van and after

investigation, charge-sheet was also filed against the driver. At

the time of the accident, the Pick Up Van was insured by Oriental

Insurance Company, who is Appellant herein.

4. Despite notice, the driver and owner of the vehicle,

who were O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, did not appear

before the Tribunal and hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

5. However, the Insurance Company appeared before

the Tribunal and filed its written statement contesting the claim

petition of the claimants. However, Insurance Company has not

denied that the offending vehicle in question, as claimed by the

claimants, was insured by it. However, Insurance Company has

pleaded that the claimants had not valid cause of action, that the

claim petition was barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and

acquiescence, that the claim petition was bad for mis-joinder and

non-joinder of the necessary party, that the deceased himself was

guilty and he was driving the said Tempo without having driving

license, that the age, income and health condition of the deceased

was not admitted, that the claimed compensation was excessive,

that the driver of the Pick Up Van was not having driving license

and there was no valid permit to the Pick Up Van at the time of Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

the accident and hence, it is the driver and owner of the Pick Up

Van who are liable to pay the compensation.

6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed by learned Tribunal :

(i) Whether the claim petition was maintainable?

(ii) Whether Asharfi Ray died on 30.01.2014 on account of negligent driving of Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166?

(iii) What was the monthly income of the deceased?

(iv) Whether the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the claimants?

(v) Whether the Insurance Company has right to recovery?

(vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation?

7. In course of the trial, two witnesses were examined

in support of the claimants, namely, Rita Devi as C.W.-1, who is

wife of the deceased/Asharfi Ray, and Dhiraj Kumar as C.W.-2,

who was an eye-witness to the accident.

8. Following documents were also exhibited in support

of the claim petition: Ext.1- F.I.R. of Barh P.S. Case No. 36 of

2014, Ext.2- charge-sheet, Ext. 3- postmortem report and Ext.4-

Insurance Policy.

9. However, no witness has been examined on behalf

of the Insurance Company, nor any document was brought on

record in support of its written statement.

10. C.W. 1 - Rita Devi, in her examination-in-chief

has supported the claim petition. In her cross-examination by Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

Insurance Company, she has deposed that the deceased was a

driver and he had driving license. However, she does not know

the age of her husband, nor she filed any document in support of

his age. She has also not filed any document in support of his

income. She has also deposed that she has no knowledge about

the insurance.

11. C.W. 2 - Dhiraj Kumar, in his examination-in-

chief has also supported the claim petition. He is an eye-witness

to the accident. He has deposed that he was in the same Tempo

which met with the accident, which resulted into death of

Asharfi Ray. The offending Pick Up Van was seized by the local

people after the accident and he took the injured- Asharfi Ray to

hospital, where he died in course of treatment. His post-mortem

was conducted at Barh hospital. He has also deposed that Asharfi

Ray was driver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In his cross-

examination by the Insurance Company, he has deposed that

deceased/Asharfi Ray was his brother-in-law. He has also

deposed that at the time of accident, he was in the same Pick Up

Van. He has also deposed that the Registration Number of the

vehicle was BHR-1AS-2166.

12. From perusal of the Insurance Policy, which is

Ext.4, the insurance of the offending vehicle was Goods Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

Carrying Package Policy, valid from 30.01.2014 to 29.01.2015.

As such, the date of the incident i.e. 31.01.2014 is covered.

13. As per post-mortem report, age of the deceased-

Asharfi Ray was assessed to be 45 years and there were multiple

injuries found on the person of the deceased and cause of death

was held to be shock and haemorrhage.

14. I heard learned counsel for the Appellant and

learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, but nobody

appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 8/Driver of the offending

vehicle and Respondent No.9/owner of the offending vehicle

despite valid service of notice.

15. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the

alleged vehicle in question bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-

2166 was not involved in the alleged accident because even in

the written report filed by the informant it was stated that pick-

up van, without carrying any registration number, had hit the

tempo wherein the deceased was traveling. To substantiate his

submission, he further submits that the FIR was lodged against

pick up van bearing no registration No. Seizure of the vehicle is

also not mentioned in the Police investigation. He also submits

that in the claim petition or in the evidence adduced on behalf of

the Claimants, there is no reference to Chassis number and Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

Engine number. Only registration number has been given in the

claim petition. In regard to insurance, it has been stated that the

vehicle was registered by Oriental Insurance Company who is

Appellant herein, but the number of the Insurance Policy is not

given. As such, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that it

was the case of hit and run and the vehicle in question was not

involved in the alleged offence.

16. However, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.

1 to 7 vehemently supports the impugned judgment/award

passed by learned Tribunal submitting that there is no illegality

or infirmity in it. To substantiate his submission, he further

submits that whatever submission is being made by the

Appellant before this Appellate Court, no such pleadings was

made by the Appellant/Insurance Company before learned

Tribunal. In the claim petition, the registration number of the

vehicle has been clearly stated and it has been deposed by the

witnesses examined in support of the claim petition that the

vehicle was involved in the accident which resulted into death of

the deceased/Asharfi Ray. It is true that in the FIR and written

report, the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned

because at that time it was not carrying any registration number,

but the Insurance Policy which is already on record and marked Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

as Ext.4, clearly shows that the vehicle was new and

Vikramshila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. was owner of the vehicle and

as per certificate of Temporary Registration which is already on

record, though not exhibited, clearly shows that the vehicle

bearing Chassis No. MAT524005DRP10865 and Engine No.

497SPTC43PWY662798 bears temporary registration No. BHR-

1-AS-2166. The same chassis number has also been mentioned

in the Insurance Policy issued on 30.01.2014 which was valid

upto 29.01.2015 covering the date of accident on 31.01.2014.

However, there is slight difference with regard to Engine

number. Last two digits of the Engine number as mentioned in

the Insurance Policy are 87, whereas in the temporary

registration number, the last two digits are 98 which is human

error committed by the concerned dealing clerk.

17. He further submits that in the written statement,

Insurance Company, who is Appellant herein, has never

challenged the Insurance Policy by specifically denying it, nor

any evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance

Company before the Tribunal to disprove Insurance Policy

which is Ext.-4. Even the witnesses were not examined on the

point of non involvement of the offending vehicle and Insurance

Policy.

Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

Points For Determination

18. In view of the rival submission of the parties, the

only point which arises for determination by this Court is

whether pick up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166

was involved in the Motor Accident resulting into death of the

deceased/Asharfi Roy and the said vehicle was insured by the

Appellant/Insurance Company.

Consideration

19. I considered the submissions advanced by both the

parties and perused the material on record.

20. As per pleadings of the Claimants/Respondent

Nos. 1 to 7 and their evidence, it clearly transpires that the

deceased/Asharfi Roy was travelling in the Tempo along with his

relatives, including C.W.-2, Dhiraj Kumar, which was hit by

pick-up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166, coming

from the opposite side which resulted into serious injury to

Asharfi Roy who ultimately died in course of treatment.

21. I also find that at the time of accident, the pick-up

van was not bearing registration number. It appears that it had

been just plying on the road coming out from the Show-Room

after temporary Registration and Insurance of the vehicle. I also

find that as per pleadings and evidence of the Claimants on Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

record, it is found that after accident, the pick-up van was

intercepted by the local people and seized by the Police and FIR

was lodged against driver of Pick Up Van without carrying any

registration number. After investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the driver of the Pick Up Van bearing

registration No. BHR-1AS-2166. Insurance Policy of the said

vehicle is also on record as Ext.-4.

22. As such, I find that the Claimants have discharged

their onus to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the

insurance of the same by the Insurance Company who is

Appellant herein. Thereafter, it was for Insurance Company to

rebut such evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimants who are

respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein, but Insurance Company has not

even taken such plea in the written statement in regard to the

non-involvement of the vehicle and non-insurance of the vehicle

by it, nor even Claimants' witnesses have been cross-examined

on this point by the Appellant/Insurance Company. In fact, the

Appellant should have not only made pleadings to such effect,

but even some official witnesses were required to be examined

on such points, including even Police Officers, if required. But

nothing of the sort has been done by the Insurance Company

during trial before learned Tribunal. At this stage, raising new Patna High Court MA No.1040 of 2018 dt.16-12-2025

facts and circumstances can not be permitted.

23. Hence, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity

in the impugned judgment/award.

24. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed directing the

Appellant to pay compensation amount in terms of the impugned

judgment/award within two months, failing which, the

Appellant/Insurance Company will be liable to pay penal interest

@ 12%. The Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the

Appellant be returned to the Appellant.

25. The record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

                                                                (Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/Ravish
ankar
AFR/NAFR               A.F.R.
CAV DATE               02.12.2025
Uploading Date         16.12.2025.
Transmission Date      16.12.2025.