( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 396 of 2013 Laxman Prasad Bhagat, son of Late Sant Lal Bhagat, resident of Village- Kotal Pokhar, P.O.& P.S.- Kotal Pokhar, District- Sahebganj, Jharkhand. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Kumkum Murmu, daughter of Late Sanat Kumar Murmu and Late Brijita Hansa, resident of Lohapur Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Lohapur, District – Birbhum (West Bengal). 2. The Branch Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd., P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S.- Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant : Mr Sudhir Sahay, Advocate Ms Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr Abhinav Kumar, Advocate Md Asadul Haque, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr Alok Lal, Advocate ----- 31 /Dated: 19.06.2026 1. Heard Mr Sudhir Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (Insurance Company). 2. Mr Abhinav Kumar used to appear for the 1st respondent, who has since expired. He states that the 1st respondent has left behind only one daughter, Kumkum Murmu, daughter of Late Sanat Kumar Murmu and Late Brijita Hansa, resident of Lohapur Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Lohapur, District – Birbhum (West Bengal). 3. Since this information is disclosed only today, on the oral application of Mr Sahay, the learned counsel for the applicant, leave is granted to bring on record/substitute Kumkum Murmu in place of the 1st respondent, Brijita Hansda, who has since expired. This is an appeal of 2013, and there is no point in delaying the matter by insisting on a written application. The amendment should be carried out forthwith. Mr Abhinav Kumar waives service on behalf of Kumkum Murmu. ( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 2 4. Mr Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised/pressed/argued only the following two grounds in support of his appeal:- (a) Firstly, he submits that there is a clear finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not driving rashly or negligently at the time of the accident. He submitted that since the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and not under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the claimant had to establish that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Since that was never established, the claim petition, which was admittedly not filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, should have been dismissed. Mr Sahay relied upon Surendra Kumar Arora and Another Vs. Manoj Bisla and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 552 in support of this contention. (b) Secondly, he contended that there is a finding that there was an insurance policy and the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident. Therefore, he submitted that the liability should have been fastened on the insurance company. 5. Upon due consideration of both submissions and a review of the records, I am satisfied that none of the contentions deserves to be upheld. The reasons for this conclusion are discussed hereafter. 6. There is no doubt that the claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and not Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. There can also be no doubt that in a claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act, the claimant is required to prove that the accident in which injuries or death may have taken place was due to the rashness and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Mr Sahay has correctly relied upon Surender Kumar Arora (supra) in support of the above-referred proposition. ( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 3 7. In this case, however, relying on a stray sentence from the impugned judgment and award and elevating it to the status of a finding, it is not possible to conclude that the accident was not due to the driver of the offending vehicle's rashness and negligence at the time of the accident. 8. In paragraph 22 of the claim statement, the claimant had specifically pleaded that the accident occurred in a public place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. WB-65-2670. It is further pleaded that, after investigations, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Sukumar Bhagat. By way of evidence, even the FIR against the driver has been produced on record, charging the driver with rash and negligent driving and causing the death of Munshi Hansda. 9. In the written statement filed by the appellant, who was impleaded as 1st respondent in the claim petition, there is no denial of the clear and categorical averments in paragraph 22 of the claim statement, though certain other paragraphs of the claim statement have been specifically denied. Since there is no denial, the Tribunal was not justified in making a casual and stray observation that “any paper is not filed in support of rash and negligent driving, like written report or charge sheet”. 10. Even the above statement is patently incorrect, inasmuch as documentary evidence in the form of FIR is seen in the records. The factum of filing the charge sheet was also never denied. Based upon such a casual statement, it cannot be held that a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Ultimately, the Tribunal has foisted the liability on the appellant herein. ( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 4 11. Therefore, even after considering the law laid down in Surender Kumar Arora (supra) and the provisions of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the first contention of Mr Sahay cannot be upheld. 12. As regards the second contention of Mr Sahay, again, there is an observation in paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment and award, which reads as follows: - “Since there is no insurance policy but from perusal of written statement of Insurance Company, the insurance of offending vehicle at the time of accident is an admitted fact, I am of the view that the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident. The absence of registration with route permit and driving license, documentary or oral evidence, I am of the view that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was violated by the owner of the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner and it is the owner responsible and liable to pay compensation. All the above mentioned issues are decided accordingly.” 13. Therefore, I cannot go by only one part of the finding about the existence of the insurance policy or that the vehicle in question was insured at the time of the accident. The remaining part of the finding regarding the absence of registration, a route permit and the driver’s lack of a driving license will also have to be considered. The Tribunal has held that on account of these factors, no liability can be foisted on the insurance company. 14. The appellant failed to produce any route permit or the driver’s licence for the offending vehicle. The insurance company raised a specific defence alleging a breach of the terms of the insurance policy. In the facts of this case, driving without a driving licence is connected to the finding of rashness and ( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 5 negligence. Accordingly, even the second point urged by Mr Sahay in this appeal cannot be accepted. 15. Mr Sahay fairly clarified that he was not raising any other grounds in support of this appeal. Since both the grounds raised by him have been considered but not accepted, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. 16. The record, prima facie, shows that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was already received by the original claimant, and further, there is an order made by this Court on 12.07.2018, which records that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited, and upon deposit, leave was granted to the claimant to withdraw the same. The withdrawal was subject to the outcome of this appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant states that this amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was duly deposited before the Executing Court. If the amount is not yet withdrawn, then the claimant / legal representative is now permitted to withdraw the same together with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on the said amount. If there is any balance amount to be recovered in terms of the impugned judgment and decree, it shall be open to the claimant / legal representative to file appropriate execution proceedings for recovery of the same. 18. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim applications, if any therein, which are still pending, will not survive and are disposed of. 19. The Registry should send a copy of this order to the Executing Court i.e. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, along with the records of this case. ( 2026:JHHC:17980 ) 6 20. The statutory deposit amount shall be paid to the claimant/legal representative now brought on record, as the Award in this case was for Rs. 2,14,000 with interest. Even after adjusting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and to Rs. 2,00,000/-, there would be further amounts that will have to be paid to the claimant. The Registry should therefore pay this amount together with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on this amount to the respondent claimant / legal representative, i.e. Kumkum Murmu. Such an amount should be transferred into Kumkum Murmu’s account through regular banking channels only. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) June 19, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 20.06.2026