2025:JHHC:35695 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 337 of 2015 M/s National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Dhanbad Divisional Office, B.P. Agarwalla Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Distt. Dhanbad. …… Appellant Versus 1. Subhadra Devi, wife of Late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. 2. Saraswati Kumar, D/o Late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. 3. Lakshmi Kumari, D/o Late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. 4. Minor Parwati Kumari, D/o late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. 5. Minor Bhola Nath Mahato, son of late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. all by faith Hindus, by occupation dependents, residents of village Paharigora, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, P.S. Baliapur, Distt. Dhanbad, minor Claimant no. 4 and 5 being represented to their natural guardian mother Subhadra Devi Claimant No.1 - Claimants / Respondents 6. Leena Roy Choudhary, wife of D. Roy Choudhary, by faith Hindu, by occupation business, resident of 67/1, New G. T. Road, P.O. Uttarpara, P.S. Uttarpara District-Hooghly, (WB)-712103. ……Opp. Party No.1/Respondent ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate ---------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ----- J U D G M E N T C.A.V. On 29.07.2025 Pronounced On: 28.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-M/s National Insurance 2025:JHHC:35695 2 Company Limited, Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5/Claimants and Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Resp. No. 6/Owner of the Offending Vehicle. 2. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 26.03.2015 passed in Title (M.V.) Case No. 71/07 by learned District Judge-XIV cum Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,26,603/- along with S.I. @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization to the claimants and further directed to pay Rs. 2,26,603/- instantly to them and Rs. 15 lacs in five different fixed deposits of one year tenure of Rs. 3 lacs each in favour of each of the claimants. 3. A short conspectus of the facts leading to the present appeal is that on the fateful day of 24.03.2006 at about 7:30 P.M. Rothulal Mahato (since deceased) along with Nirmal Mahato as his pillion, while commuting towards Baliapur which got dashed by the truck’s rear portion having registration no. WB-23-8176 near Mohanpur pond which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the said dash, Rothulal Mahato (since deceased) and Nirmal Mahato fell down and sustained injuries and in course of treatment Rothulal Mahato (since deceased) succumbed to his injury. 4. An F.I.R. regarding above said incident has been got registered being Baliapur P. S. Case No. 27 of 2006 under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC. The respondents/claimants, including wife and children of the deceased- Rothulal Mahato, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2025:JHHC:35695 3 5. The owner of the offending truck and appellant-M/s National Insurance Company Limited made opposite parties in the said application. It transpires from record that after issuance of notice, the owner of the offending truck has put its appearance on 13.08.2008 through its lawyer. Despite given several opportunities to the owner of the offending truck to file written statement, the owner of the offending truck failed to file W.S and thus, learned Tribunal debarred the owner of the offending truck from filing of W.S vide order dated 21.04.2009. However, Insurance company filed the written statement and denied their liability to pay the compensation. 6. During enquiry before the Tribunal, three witnesses got examined on behalf of the claimants. One of the claimants got herself examined as A.W.-1 who happens to be the wife of the deceased and reiterated the fact that her deceased husband was dashed by the offending truck and thus, sustained injuries and during his treatment he succumbed. A.W.-2 who happens to be the eyewitness of the accident and reiterated the fact that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck, the deceased succumbed to injury. A.W.-3 who happens to be the colleague of the deceased stated the fact that the deceased was working as C.L fitter under B.C.C.L Colliery and mentioned about in hand salary of the deceased. Claimants further brought on record following documents :- Ext. 1- Pay slip of late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. Ext.2- Certified Copy of F.I.R. Ext. 3- Certified Copy of Chargesheet. 2025:JHHC:35695 4 Ext. 4 –Discharge certificate of the deceased late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. Ext. 5 –Death Certificate of late Rothulal Mahato @ Raghulal Mahato. 7. On behalf of opposite party –Insurance Company, no oral evidence has been adduced, however, Insurance Company brought on record following documents:– Ext. A – Insurance Policy paper of the offending Vehicle WB-23 8176. Ext. B – Permit Certificate of Secretary State Transport Authority, W.B 8. After analyzing the materials available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 26.03.2015 and thereby fasten the liability upon the appellant-M/s National Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs. 17,26,603/- along with S.I. @ 6 % p.a. 9. Being aggrieved with the above-said impugned award dated 26.03.2015, the appellant-M/s National Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal and challenged the award on a very limited point that there was no valid permit to run the truck, therefore, liability cannot be foisted upon the appellant- M/s National Insurance Company Limited on account of breach of terms and conditions and therefore, liability is that of the owner and on the above premise right to recovery is prayed. To substantiate the above contention, the appellant – Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs. TaTa AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. & Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.- 1 to 5/Claimants submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded 2025:JHHC:35695 5 just compensation by taking into consideration all the factors, in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and thus, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surekha vs. Santosh reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467 and submitted that compensation amount as awarded may be enhanced even in the absence of appeal by the Claimants in the view of above judgment and, therefore, a suitable order may be passed in the light of the above Judgments. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.-6/Owner of the offending truck drew the attention of this Court towards the Issue no.- V in the order impugned and submitted that there is finding of learned Tribunal qua the D.L and permit and Exhibit –B, the permit certificate issued by the Secretary State Transport Authority, W.B, brought by the appellant– Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal has also been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and accordingly, no breach of terms and conditions was found and, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. The limited question/point which has been agitated before this Court by the appellant -Insurance Company is that whether the truck having Registration No. WB-23-8176 is having valid permit or not? 14. The Tribunal has also framed an issue No. V regarding effective Driving License at the time of accident and 2025:JHHC:35695 6 has observed in its findings that the claimants have brought before the Tribunal a copy of authority letter issued by the owner to the driver of the offending truck namely, Vijay Kumar Saha having license no.- 5014009, which was valid till 04-10- 07 and thereby hold that on the date of accident the driver of the offending truck possess a valid D.L. Further, it was also observed and held that the offending truck possess all the valid documents at the time of accident. 15. Record reveals that Exhibit-B the permit certificate issued by the Secretary State Transport Authority, W.B, has been brought on record by the appellant - Insurance Company before the Tribunal and from the perusal of the said certificate, it transpires that the said certificate was issued in the year 2013 and “no record” has been mentioned in place of details in the said certificate. The details about the permit in the respective Column of the said certificate shows “no record” and “no record” specified in the said certificate itself speaks that there is no permit issued against the offending truck having registration no.- WB 23 8176 by the transport authority. 16. It would not be out of place to mention here that owner of the offending truck also participated in the claim proceeding before the Tribunal and got debarred from filing W.S. and also participated in appeal before this Court, however the owner has not taken pain to come explicitly on this issue by bringing on record the permit issued for the said truck having registration No.WB-23 8176 and D.L. 17. In view of the abovesaid discussions, this Court is having no hesitation to hold that there is no permit qua the truck having registration No. WB-23 8176 on the date of accident, as such, there is a violation/breach of terms and 2025:JHHC:35695 7 conditions by the owner. The Tribunal has foisted the liability upon the shoulder of the appellant-M/s National Insurance Company Limited to immediately pay compensation amount to the respondents/claimants but has not given the right to recovery to the appellant- Insurance Company Limited, despite the fact as observed by this Court in preceding paragraph that there is a violation/breach of terms and conditions by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the right to recovery against the owner of the offending truck having Registration No. WB-23 8176 is given to the appellant-M/s National Insurance Company Limited. 18. As far as, quantum is concerned, the appellant- Insurance Company has agitated the impugned award on the limited point of right to recovery only and quantum has not been assailed. However, the Tribunal has rightly computed the compensation but awarded only Rs 9,500/- under conventional head which ought to be Rs 70,000/- in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(supra). 19. Considering the legal proposition as held in Surekha (supra), this Court is of considered view that the amount of compensation under conventional head to be Rs 70,000/- instead of Rs 9,500/-. 20. Further, It transpires that this Court vide its order dated 26.04.2018 had directed the Executing Court to disburse the amount to the tune of Rs. 15, 00,000/- to the claimants and thereafter vide order dated 08.06.2022, this Court further directed to disburse a sum Rs. 5,00,000/- to the claimants. 21. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the remaining amount of award to the claimants 2025:JHHC:35695 8 with aforesaid modification from the date of filing of the claim till its realization, within a period of 45 days from today and is allowed to recover the same from the owner. 22. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be remitted to the Tribunal by learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be paid to the claimants by the learned Tribunal/executing court after notice and due verification. 23. Resultantly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 337 of 2015, is hereby, allowed with aforesaid directions. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Dated : 28.11.2025 Rajnish /- A.F.R.