2025:JHHC:25862 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No.178 of 2014 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Shyam Bazar Road, PO and PS- Dumka, District- Dumka duly represented through National Insurance Co. Ltd., Assistant Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell at Kachhari Road, PO and PS- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shanti Tudu, W/o Late Rubel Soren 2. Siman Soren, S/o Late Rubel Soren 3. Surendra Soren, S/o Late Rubel Soren 4. Prolata Soren, D/o Late Rubel Soren Respondent Nos.2 to 4 being minors and being represented through their mother, Respondent No.1 as their natural guardian). All are residents of Village- Chandrapura, PO and PS- Kathikund, Subdivision & District- Dumka. 5. Tribal Welfare Commissioner, State of Jharkhand, PO +PS- Doranda, Ranchi. 6. Julian Tudu & Nine others under Tribal Welfare Commissioner, TWC, Ranchi at present residing at Village & PS- Bichpahari, PO- Chokisal, Via Pakuria, District- Pakur. .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the Resp.6 : Ms. Rishi Bharati, Advocate Ms. Priyasha Priyadarshani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC.I …... 26/ 26.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and Award of compensation dated 28.03.2011 passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Dumka in Title Claim Case No.18 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the liability to pay the compensation amount under Section 166 of the M. V. Act has been fixed upon the appellant- Insurance Company by holding that at the relevant time of accident, the offending vehicle was under its insurance cover. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in order to make the appellant- Insurance Company liable, it was incumbent on the part of the owner to have established that premium was paid and insurance policy was issued for the offending vehicle. The fact of the case is that the cheque by which the premium amount was paid got dishonoured and consequently before the date of accident, 2025:JHHC:25862 2 insurance policy was cancelled by the appellant- Insurance Company. Intimation of cancellation was also communicated to the owner of the vehicle and the owner had full knowledge about the cancellation and consequently, on 13.09.2002, the owner purchased a fresh policy of insurance of the vehicle. 3. I find considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of the State that since the offending vehicle was purchased by the Department and given on hire to the group of 10 persons, therefore for all intent and purpose liability if any would be on the hirer and not the Department. Registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Tribal Welfare Commissioner had purchased the vehicle under a Tribal Welfare Scheme and it was hired out to ten persons. Under the term of policy of hire agreement, the liability to get the vehicle insured and to get the permit of it was on the hirer and not of the Department which had given the vehicle on hire. Further, in terms of Section 2(30) of the M. V. Act, 1988 the hirer was deemed to be the owner of the vehicle and not the Department, which had given the vehicle on hire. 4. The plea of the Insurance Company that cancellation of the policy of insurance for the dishonour of cheque was intimated to the owner of the vehicle is not supported by evidence. Mere unilateral cancellation is not sufficient, it should be intimated to the owner of the vehicle before the date of accident in terms of the ratio laid down in Deddappa & Ors vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2008 (2) SCC 595. In this case before the Apex Court, it was held that in order to absolve the appellant- Insurance Company from its liability where premium has been paid by cheque and the said cheque has got bounced, it is necessary that firstly the policy of the Insurance Company would be cancelled and secondly, the said intimation should be given to the owner of the vehicle. 5. Here evidence on record suggests that policy of insurance is shown to be cancelled by an internal document of the Company vide Ext – E/3. However Ext-E/1 and E/2 will go to show that the said intimation was posted on 10.09.2002, but was received on 13.09.2002 whereas the date of accident is 10.09.2002. Therefore, the fact that 2025:JHHC:25862 3 the cheque had bounced and it has been intimated before the date of accident is not factually correct. 6. Arguments raised challenging the award of compensation by the Insurance Company is not sustainable and accordingly the Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 7. The statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal, be remitted to the concerned Tribunal at the earliest so as to make payment/ adjust in the compensation amount to the claimants. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-