1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 227 of 2015 1. Charubala Devi, W/o Karamchand Mahto 2. Nirmal Mahto @ Biru Mahto, son of Karamchand Mahto Both are residents of Dumardah Tola Sidbad, P.S. & P.O. Chas (M), District-Dhanbad .... .... Appellants Versus 1. Aloka Devi, W/o Chinibas Mahto 2. Chinibas Mahto, Son of Gauri Lal Mahto Both are residents of village- Bhagabandh Tola, Kumartand, P.O. and P.S.- Chas (M), District-Bokaro. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Natraj Mansion Chas Branch Bypass Road, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro (Insurer of Vehicle). 4. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sector-1, Ram Mandir, B.S. City, P.O. and P.S.-B.S. City, District-Bokaro. 5. Bank of India through S.P. Banerjee, Chief Manager, Chas Branch, P.O.- Chas, Jodhadih More, P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro. … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Resp No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. K. L. Ojha, Advocate ------ Order No. 17 / Dated : 10.02.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Appellants-Owner and driver of the vehicle is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2009 in T(MV) Suit No. 57 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the liability to pay compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been fixed upon the owner of the vehicle. 2. Facts are not in dispute that one Akshay Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor bearing registration No.BR-20E-9673 on 08.06.2002. 3. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle, in question, was under hypothecation of Bank of India (R-5) at the time of accident. 4. In this case, the claim application was filed impleading the joint owners of the tractor as well as the Insurance Company as party(s). At the instance of O.P. nos. 1 and 2, Bank of India was impleaded as party, since the tractor was hypothecated with the bank in pursuance to the order dated 31.07.2008. 5. The owners of the vehicle appeared, but they were debarred from filing written statement. 2 6. Bank filed its written statement, inter-alia, admitting that an amount of Rs. 2820/- had already been deposited on 05.06.2002 in the term loan account of respondent No.1, Charubala Devi wherein premium for the year, 2002- 03 of National Insurance Company Limited of Rs.3,582/- was handed over to the National Insurance Company on 05.06.2002 itself, together with other premium of Rs. 381/-. The Bank (O.P. No. 5) attached photocopy of the pay slip and vouchers. 7. It has also been pleaded that delay in encashing the pay slip was on the part of the insurance company. 8. Contra, plea of the insurance company is that the said pay order was handed over on 10.06.2002 and accordingly the same was deposited in its Indian Overseas Bank and the Vehicle was insured with effect from 10.06.2002. In support of the pleading, cash receipt (Ext. B) and deposit receipt (Ext. C) and insurance policy Ext. D have been adduced into evidence. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is evident that there was no laches on the part of the owner of the vehicle as after the loan was drawn, the vehicle was hypothecated with the Bank of India. 10. It has been admitted by the Bank that on 05.06.2002 itself, payment order of Rs. 3582/- was raised and handed over to the National Insurance Company with other premium of Rs. 381/-. Insurance company denies the date of receipt of the pay order, but not that amount was not remitted. 11. In order to fix the liability on the Bank or Insurance Company, the question turns on the point whether the pay order was handed over to the National Insurance Company on 05.06.2002 or, on 10.06.2002. If the payment order was handed over on 05.06.2002, Insurance Company shall be liable and if it was on 10.06.2002, delay can be on account of laches of the Bank which will accordingly be liable. 12. The insurance company has led evidence in support of its pleadings that the amount was received on 10.06.2002, whereas the Bank has failed to lead any evidence on the point that the pay order was handed over on 05.06.2002. Under the circumstances, on preponderance of probability(s), it can be safely inferred that the laches was on the part of the bank to hand over the pay order to the Insurance Company resulting in the delay of 3 insurance of vehicle. Since the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident due to fault on the part of the Bank, therefore, the liability for paying the compensation shall be on bank and not on the owner or on the insurance company. The Bank of India (Respondent No.5) is accordingly, directed to make the full and final satisfaction of the claim amount within a month of this order by depositing the same with the learned Tribunal, which shall be disbursed to the claimants as per the terms fixed by learned Tribunal. Miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the instant Misc. appeal. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/Sandeep-