2025:JHHC:19376 1 M.A. No. 534 of 2016 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 534 of 2016 Divisional Manger, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., B.P. Agarwalla Building P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad ..… Appellant Versus 1. Azamat Ara wife of late Ajhar Imam @ Munu (Claimant No.1) 2. Nadia Imam daughter of late Ajhar Imam @ Munu (Claimant No.2) 3. Madsir Imam son of late Ajhar Imam @ Munu (Claimant No.3) 4. Sarif Imam son of late Ajhar Imam @ Munu (Claimant No.4) 5. Shafa Imam daughter of late Ajhar Imam @ Munu (Claimant No.5) All residing at Village Bhaga Bazar, P.O. Bhaga P.S. Jorapokhar District- Dhanbad. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are minors and are being represented through their mother respondent no. 1 being their natural guardian as their next friend. 6. Bikash Chandra Mahatha son of Ashwini Kumar Mahatha resident of Poradih P.O. & P.S. Santhaldih Bogra District- Purulia (WB) 723146 .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondents : --------- 09/ 16th July, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal against award dated 17.05.2016 passed by learned District Judge-VI Cum Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Case No. 203 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge-VI has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,99,500/- with simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of admission till the date of realization. 3. From perusal of record it transpires that notice upon claimants has been served validly in the present case, but they did not turn up, however, owner of the offending vehicle participated in the present proceeding. 4. Main grievance of the appellant Insurance Company in the present appeal is that, the issues in respect of violation of term and condition of policy were framed as Issue nos. 5 and 6 but the said issues were not decided by the learned Tribunal and liability on the shoulder of Insurance Company has been fastened only on the basis that vehicle is insured with the appellant Insurance Company. Issue nos. 5 and 6 as framed by learned 2025:JHHC:19376 2 M.A. No. 534 of 2016 Tribunal reads hereunder:- “Issue No.5:- whether driver of the truck bearing registration no. JH-10K-9367 had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? Issue No.6:- Whether the offending vehicle truck bearing registration no. JH-10K-9367 had effective and valid permit at the time of occurrence?” 5. This Court passed the following order on 20.06.2022:- “From the pleadings, specially mentioned in written statement, I find that the plea was taken that the permit and driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle were not valid. The Issue in respect of driving licence and permit was framed by the Tribunal as Issue Nos. 5 and 6, but the said issues were not answered by the Tribunal, which is apparent from para 13 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has held that since the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant- Insurance Company, the Insurer was liable to pay the amount of compensation. It is well settled principle that the right to recover the amount of compensation be granted to the Insurance Company, if the offending vehicle was plied without valid permit or it was being driven by a person, who did not have valid licence. These two issues thus should have been dealt with independently by the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record. Since the aforesaid two issues have not been answered by the Tribunal, I direct the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid two issues i.e. Issue No. 5 and 6 within three months from today and forward the findings to this Court. Both the parties will cooperate in the proceedings before the Tribunal and if the Tribunal feels the additional evidence is required to be placed for deciding the aforesaid issues, he may ask the parties to lead additional evidence. The entire amount of compensation along with interest should be satisfied by the Insurance Company, if not already satisfied, within a week. List this case after four months.” 6. In compliance of above order passed by this Court, learned tribunal vide order dated 15.09.2022 decided both the issues i.e. Issue nos. 5 and 6 and has given its finding that driver of the offending vehicle was driving without possessing effective and valid licence and also held that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH-10K-9367 was being plied without any permit and upon such findings, learned tribunal has given right to recovery to appellant Insurance Company against the owner of 2025:JHHC:19376 3 M.A. No. 534 of 2016 the vehicle. 7. The above said finding of learned tribunal dated 15.09.2022 on Issue nos. 5 and 6 has become part of the impugned award dated 17.05.2016 and thereafter, this Court feels that nothing survives in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the relief sought by the appellant Insurance Company, in the present appeal, has already been granted to the appellant Insurance Company after remand of the matter for deciding Issue nos. 5 and 6 by the learned tribunal and nothing survives in the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company on instruction, submitted that compensation amount awarded by learned tribunal vide award dated 17.05.2016 has already been deposited by appellant Insurance Company. 10. No objections to the finding dated 15.09.2022 of the learned tribunal have been filed by the other side. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that appellant Insurance Company has been granted right to recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration no. JH-10K-9367 by the learned tribunal after remand by this Court. Therefore, this miscellaneous appeal stand disposed of accordingly. 12. Since the Insurance Company has satisfied the award, the statutory amount deposited by appellant Insurance Company shall be released back to the Insurance Company. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rajnish/