2025:JHHC:36456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.395 of 2025 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pranami Heights, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, PO and PS Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001, represented through its authorized signatory namely Rimpi Banerjee, D/o U. K. Banerjee, Posted as Legal Executive, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pranami Heights, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, PO and PS Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001 .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Zeenat Yasmin, W/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar 2. Shayka Perween, D/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar 3. Md. Atif Quaisar, S/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar 4. Md. Saquib Quaisar, S/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar 5. Sairun Bibi, W/o Late Afid Ansari Resp. Nos.2 & 3 are minors and represented through their mother and natural guardian being Resp. No.1 herein. All R/o Village – Nari Nawadih, PO- Nari Nawadih, PS- Kisko, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand 835302. 6. Abdul Rajjak, S/o Sultan Ansari, R/o Village- Kasiyadih, PO- Nari Nawadih, PS- Kisko, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand 835302. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Pratyush Kumar, Advocate Taru Gupta, V. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the O. P.(s) : …... 08/ 04.12.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance company. 1. The instant CMP has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga, in MACC No.32 of 2022 by which the petition filed under Order XVI, Rules 6 & 7A read with Section 151 CPC to call for the details/ register form from the Office of the RTO, Lohardaga with respect to permit and fitness by issuing summon to the R.T.O., Lohardaga has been rejected. 2. Learned Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that issue of contributory negligence has been framed and the document concerned was not germane to the decision on this issue. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is entitled to raise its defence of fundament breach in terms of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act that the vehicle, in question was being plied without a valid permit. In order to demonstrate that the said vehicle 2025:JHHC:36456 was being run without any valid permit, the requisite document was necessary for which, the said petition was filed. 4. Earlier notices were issued upon the Opp. Parties who had not appeared and consequently, the petition is being heard ex-parte. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced and perusing the materials on record, this Court is of the view that it will be impractical to summon the register in all cases where such issues regarding absence of permit is raised before the Tribunal. Law is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2018) 7 SCC 558] that onus lies on the owner of the vehicle to bring on record the permit of the vehicle and on its failure to do so, adverse inference can be drawn. Otherwise also, if such evidence is within the knowledge and control of a party and is not produced, the presumption of fact can be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. In this view of the matter, the said petition to call for the details/ register form has been rightly dismissed. If the owner fails to bring on record the permit, he can do so on its own peril. The instant CMP stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 5.12.2025.