1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 190 of 2022 1.Ranjeet Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Charku Rajwar 2. Charku Rajwar, aged about 70 years, son of late Shibu Rajwar Both are residents of village Bansgarh, P.O. Baidmara, P.S. Harla, District-Bokaro ……… Appellants VERSUS 1. Mili Devi aged about 49 years, widow of late Puran Singh 2. Goutam Kumar Singh, aged about 27 years, son of late Puran Singh 3. Karan Singh, aged about 20 years, son of late Puran Singh 4. Kiran Kumari, aged about 17 years, minor daughter of late Puran Singh 5. Bimla Devi aged about 31 years, wife of Jagdish Ray, daughter of Late Puran Singh All are residents of village Bansgarh, P.O. Baidmara, P.S. Harla, District-Bokaro The respondent no.4 is minor daughter and is represented by Mili Devi, the natural guardian of the respondent no. 4. 6. Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. B-11, City Center, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Sector-IV, District-Bokaro .…… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate ………. 05/Dated: 26/03/2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent no.6- Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is barred by limitation of 451 days. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants submits that I.A. No.6639 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that notice was not served. 4. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company draws the attention of the Court to the impugned award and submits that in para 3 it has come that notice has been effected. 5. In view of above and looking into para 3 of the impugned award it transpires that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who are the claimants are father and son 2 and notice through Nazarat has been received by Charku Rajwar who is appellant no. 2 in the present appeal. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son and notice upon them has been effected thereafter, the learned tribunal proceeded in the matter ex parte. As the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that notice has not been served, is not accepted by this Court. 6. On merit, Mr. Sahani submits that inspite of valid policy liability has been fastened upon the appellants who are the owner and driver of the tractor in question. He submits that there is no discussion with regard to materials on record in deciding the issues. 7. The appellant no.1 is the owner and 2 is driver of the said tractor and notices upon them have already been effected as discussed hereinabove. 8. Learned court for deciding the claim case has framed seven issue. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided by the learned tribunal with regard to validity of the insurance policy. 9. The learned tribunal looking into the insurance policy as found that Insurance Policy Cover Code No. 133986071 valid from 31.07.2017 to 30.07.2018 but the alleged date of occurrence is 31.05.2017 and in view of that the learned court has found that vehicle in question was not insured at the time of occurrence and in view of that the learned court has further found that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as policy itself was not existing and in view of that there is no error in the finding of the learned tribunal. 10. The learned tribunal looking into the documents has come to that finding and it is well settled that once documentary evidence is there that cannot be denied by way of leading the evidence. Chargesheet has already been submitted. 11. In view of the above discussions, the Court finds that the learned 3 counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Court on the point of limitation as well as on the merit of the case. As such this appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-