1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 183 of 2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office 24 White Road, Chennai 600014, Divisional Manager, Bokaro A-17, First Floor, City Centre, Sector-4, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, 827004, District-Bokaro .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Guniya Devi, W/o Chaita Mahto 2. Chaita Mahto, S/o Late Pryag Mahto 3. Manju Kumari, D/o Chaita Mahto 4. Anju Kumari, D/o Chaita Mahto 5. Sanju Kumari, D/o Chaita Mahto All residing at Jaridih Basti, P.O. & P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District- Bokaro (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are minors and are being represented through their mother being natural guardian as their next friend) 6. B.K.B Transport Private Ltd. I/C P.K. Agarwal, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Agarwal, residing at 2F, Vatika Apartment, Line Tank Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. (Owner) 7. Gendu Giri, S/o Sahdeo Giri, R/o Village- Chalkari, P.O. & P.S. Peterwar, District-Bokaro (Driver) … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate ------ Order No. 11 / Dated : 24.02.2025. 1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 102 of 2011, whereby and whereunder liability to pay compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been fixed on the Insurance Company. 2. Earlier vide order dated 05.05.2022 of this Court, the case was remanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding issue no. IV afresh regarding validity of the driving licence of the driver. After the said order, the parties were heard and issue has been decided wherein it has been held that it was a valid driving licence and there was no breach of insurance policy on this score. 3. Now a new argument is advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that although the vehicle was having a valid permit at the time of accident, but it was being operated in an area beyond permissible limit as per the insurance policy. 4. It is rightly argued by the Learned counsel on behalf of the owner of the vehicle that there is no evidence that vehicle was being operated beyond any 2 permissible limit. Furthermore, even it is assumed that the vehicle was not being operated at the time of accident in the said area, it will not constitute a fundamental breach of insurance policy as under Section 149 (2) of the MV Act. Reliance is placed on Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2018) 2 SCC 108. Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal to be disbursed along with compensation to the claimants within a month of this order which will be disbursed to the claimants as per the terms fixed by the Tribunal. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -