2025:JHHC:25865 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 185 of 2016 Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.1, Ashok Automobiles Building, Main Road, Ranchi. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1.Karamanti Devi, W/o Late Birendra Mahto 2.Satish Mahto, S/o Late Birendra Mahto 3.Sandip Mahto, S/o Late Birendra Mahto 4.Indu Kumari, D/o Late Birendra Mahto 5.Rohini Devi, W/o Late Shiv Shankar Mahto All residents of Village- Birhu, P.S. Khunti, District- Khunti. 6.Jeeta Kachhap, S/o Mahadeo Kachhap Group Leader Meso Bus, R/o Village Dungri, P.O. Tupudana, P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No.6 : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate Ms. Priyasha Priyadarshani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC.I Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka., AC to SC-I For the claimant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Mahto, Advocate …... 27/ 26.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The appellant- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal against the judgment of Award dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No.265 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- has been awarded along with interest @7% per annum from the date of admission till its realization and the liability has been fixed upon the appellant- Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. 2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute and the issue in appeal is about the liability to pay the compensation which has been fastened upon the appellant- Insurance Company. 3. Offending vehicle was a passenger carrying vehicle, and was registered in the name of the Tribal Welfare Commissioner and was given on hire to ten co-owners, namely, Jeeta Kachhap, Jitu Kachhap, Soma Oraon, Mahesh Oraon, Pradip Sunil Toppo, Jagendra kachhap, Smt. Pushpa Gari, Asha Lakra, Champu Kachhap and Sarika Kachhap under the tribal welfare scheme. 2025:JHHC:25865 2 4. Vide order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Tribal Welfare Commissioner was impleaded as Respondent No.7. 5. From the Rejoinder/affidavit dated 03.04.2023 sworn on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, it is evident that, registered owner of the vehicle was Tribal Welfare Commissioner which was handed-over to the Group of Tribal for operation of the said vehicle. Further, even the insurance policy shows the names of the owner to be Tribal Welfare Commissioner. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any two views on the ownership of the vehicle in the name of Respondent No.7. 6. However, since the vehicle was given on hire under the agreement, therefore, in terms of Section 2(30) of the M.V. Act,1988, it was the hirer who were the owner of the vehicle and not Respondent No.7 to fix liability of paying compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. 7. The main contention on behalf of the Insurance Company is that said vehicle was being plied without any valid permit which constituted the breach of policy of insurance in terms of the Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and, therefore, the appellant – Insurance Company may be permitted to get right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle, i.e. Tribal Welfare Commissioner. 8. It is argued that since the permit was not produced, therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Amrit Paul Singh vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay the compensation amount. In this case even the right of recovery has not been granted in favour of the Insurance Company. 9. Learned SC-I for the State has submitted that the counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the agreement between the Project Officer, MESO Scheme, Ranchi and the group of ten persons were given the vehicle on hire has been brought on record. As per the statement made in Paras- 4 and 8 of the agreement, it was the hirer(s) who was responsible to do the insurance of the vehicle and permit, therefore, the breach is on the part of the hirer. 2025:JHHC:25865 3 10. Having considered the submissions advanced, there cannot be any two views that Tribal Welfare Commissioner cannot be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle to fix liability under Section 166 of the M. V. Act. It will the hirers of the vehicle who will be deemed to be the owner under Section 2 sub-Section 30 of the M.V. Act defines owner as under :- “30. “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 11. There is merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that onus was on the hirers to have produced the permit for plying the offending vehicle which was admittedly a commercial vehicle. Having failed to do so there was a fundamental breach of the policy of insurance under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Under the circumstance, the appellant- Insurance Company shall have a right to pay and recover the compensation from the group of 10 hirers to whom the offending vehicle was given on hire. With this modification granting right of recovery to the appellant- New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the instant Misc. appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. The Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being disbursed to the claimants after adjustment against the final compensation to be paid to the claimants. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/