2025:JHHC:15054 --1-- M.A. No.309 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI M.A. No. 309 of 2024 ---- 1. Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., MAGMA House 24, Park Street, PO and PS – Park Street, Kolkata, District – Kolkata 2. Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Patna, 2nd Floor, Shiv Laxmi Plaza opposite to Rajendra Nagar Terminal, Kankarbagh, Main Road, Patna, PO and PS – Kankarbagh, District – Patna, Bihar, both the appellants being represented through its Manager (legal) having its office at 5th Floor, Unit No.508, Patna One Mall, Dak Bunglow Crossing, Frezer Road, PS – Kotwali, PO and District – Patna .... Appellant -- Versus -- 1. Fuliya Devi, wife of Late Maleshwar Pahariya @ Moleshwar Pahadiya 2. Birbal Pahadhiya son of Late Maleshwar Pahariya @ Moleshwar Pahadiya 3. Rina Kumari, daughter of Late Maleshwar Pahariya @ Moleshwar Pahadiya (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors being represented through their mother being their natural guardian as their next friend). All are permanent residents of Mohalla/village – Maheshbathan, PO – Birajpur, PS – Palojori, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand Presently residing at Mohalla/Village – Mirchatari, PS – Sundarpahari, PO and District – Godda, Jharkhand 4. Shyamlal Marandi, son of Late Robin Marandi residing at Kusma, PO and PS – Palajori, District – Deoghar (owner) (OP No.1) 5. Arvind Soren, son of Late Bhim Soren, At Sirsia, sub-division – Palajori, PO and PS – Palajori, District – Deoghar (OP No.2) .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Appellant :- Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :- Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate ---- 05/11.06.2025 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Vidhika Saboo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants. 2. Notice upon the opposite party Nos.4 and 5, who are driver and 2025:JHHC:15054 --2-- M.A. No.309 of 2024 owner respectively, has already been effected. By order dated 05.03.2025, this matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to the respondents, however, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have chosen not to appear before this Court, as such this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godda in Motor Accident Claim Case No.140 of 2019. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has held in clear terms that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in spite of that the insurance company has been directed to pay the entire awarded amount. He submits that another point is involved in the present appeal with regard to the premium not paid for the gratuitous passenger. He submits that the tractor in question being pulled by the trailer and in tractor deceased along with other persons were travelling. He submits that through the policy only the driver was covered and no additional premium was paid for other persons and in view of that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the award and fixing the liability upon the insurance company. He further submits that the driving license and the permit was also not produced before the learned Court and the learned Tribunal has held that the driving license was not valid. He submits in view of that the award is required to be interfered by this Court. On this background, he submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 5. Per contra, Ms. Saboo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants, submits that even if the 2025:JHHC:15054 --3-- M.A. No.309 of 2024 additional premium amount is not paid, the owner of the tractor is liable to compensate the claims. She submits that the learned Tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay and recover and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned award. 6. The Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned award wherefrom it transpires that the claimants filed the compensation case for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.20,86,000/- on account of death of deceased - Maleshwar Pahariya @ Moleshwar Pahadiya, who died arising out of motor vehicle accident which took place on 02.06.2016 at about 9:00 AM near bridge of Mahesh Bathan within PS – Palajori, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. It was alleged that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No. JH-21D- 9458 with tailor bearing registration No.JH-21D-3398 was involved and the aforesaid vehicle (tractor) was owned by O.P. No.1 - Shyamlal Marandi & O.P. No.2 – Arvind Soren, who was the driver and O.P. No.3 MAGMA HDI General Insurance Company Limited was the insurer of the aforesaid vehicle (tractor) and the tailor. On this background, the case has been filed and pursuant to that extent Palajori P.S. Case No.67/2016 was registered. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the issue No.3 that was with regard to the driving license was valid or not and while deciding the said issue the learned Tribunal found that the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 has not been able to brought on record the driving license and in view of that the learned Tribunal has held that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving license at the time of accident that is on 02.06.2016 and the issue No.3 was decided in favour of the insurance company, who were the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 in the claim case. While deciding the 2025:JHHC:15054 --4-- M.A. No.309 of 2024 issue No.4 the learned Tribunal has further decided the same in favour of the insurance company holding that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, however, the learned Tribunal has further held that the owner and the driver jointly and similarly liable for compensation. Thus, the Court finds that when two findings are there in favour of the insurance company, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the owner and the driver. The direction has been issued to the insurance company to pay and recover. Thus, the learned Tribunal has taken care of recovery of the amount from the owner and the driver after payment by the insurance company. 8. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned award, as such no case of interference is made out by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to take recourse before the learned Tribunal in light of the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nanjappan and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 9. The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants, if it is not satisfied as yet. 10. If the award is not satisfied as yet, the same will be satisfied in favour of the claimants within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/