(2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 399 of 2015 Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Office Code- 140300, at Star Trade Centre 2nd Floor, Sodawala Lane, P.O. & P.S. Barivali (W), Mumbai 92 (Maharastra) Through Sr. Divisional Manager. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Sethi Corporate. Pepe Compound, P.O. and P.S. Main Road, Ranchi … …. … Appellant Versus 1. Maya Das wife of Kamakshya Das @ Kamakshya Charan Das 2. Kamakshya Das @ Kamakshya Charan Das son of Late Madan Das Resident of Village Batudih. P.O. Maradi. P.S. Santurhi District- Oyrykuta (W.B) Originally resident of Village- Khorbor. P.O. Jamgram. P.S. Barabani District- Burdwan (W.B.) (Claimant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively) 3. Rajkishore Choudhari son of Bhim Choudhri permanent resident of and presently residing at Village Batudih, P.O. Dhasaniya, P.S. Kunahit Sub division & District Jamtara. (Owner- Driver) ... … …. …. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondent No. 3: Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mrs D. Arati Kumari, Advocate --------- 16/Dated: 19.06.2026 1. Heard Mr Alok Lal for the applicant/appellant and Mr Arvind Kumar Lall for the 3rd respondent (owner - driver of the offending vehicle). 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28th April, 2015, by which the Tribunal at Dumka has awarded the 1st and 2nd respondents (claimants) total compensation of Rs. 1,60,900/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. This appeal was filed on 24.08.2015, and to date, the most important parties to this appeal remain, i.e., the claimants herein have not been served. (2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 2 4. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased Uttam Das, who died in a motor accident at the age of 29 years. At the time the claim petition was instituted, Uttam Das’s mother was 52 years old, and his father, Kamakshya Das, was 60 years old. This was the position in 2007. The record now shows that the father has died and the mother is about 72 years or thereabouts. Till today, they have received the meagre compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal. 5. In effect, therefore, the Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have ensured that the parents of Uttam Das, who died at a young age of 29 years in 2006, received not even the meagre compensation of Rs. 1,60,900/- for almost 20 years since the expiry of their son, Uttam. 6. The impugned award had directed the payment of compensation to Uttam’s parents. The Appellant Insurance Company simply ignored this direction, even though there was no stay from any Court. By keeping this appeal pending for reasons that leave much to be desired, the payment was avoided, thereby abusing the legal process and frustrating the provisions of this beneficial legislation. 7. This is the unfortunate background in which the Insurance Company’s I.A. No. 6960 of 2026, seeking leave to serve the aged mother by substituted service filed only on 12.05.2026, will have to be considered. 8. The record shows that this appeal was filed on 24.08.2015 with several defects. The defects were cleared after four years, i.e. on 17.09.2019, and the matter was first taken up before the Court. On this date, notices were issued to all the respondents in the main appeal as well as in the limitation matter by registered post with A/D and ordinary process, and it was directed that the requisites must be filed by 14th October 2019. (2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 3 9. There is an order dated 09.05.2022 which records Mr Alok Lal’s submission that steps would be taken for effecting service upon the claimants. This means that for a further 3 years no service was effected upon the claimants. 10. After that, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 08.08.2022, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, possibly because it was not pointed out that the claimants had not been served. This order records that Mr Alok Lal appeared for the appellant and Mr Arvind Kumar Lall appeared for the respondents, though admittedly, Mr Arvind Kumar Lall appeared for the owners/driver and not the claimants. On the same mistaken belief, this appeal was admitted on 24.08.2022, wherein again it is recorded that Mr Arvind Kumar Lall was appearing for all the respondents. Nothing was pointed out to the Court regarding the claimants’ non-service. As officers of the Court, it was, I should think, the duty of the Advocates to have pointed out this fact to the Court. 11. On 05.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, adjournments were applied for on behalf of the 3rd respondent by Mr Arvind Kumar Lall. On 17.04.2025, both learned counsels applied for adjournment and the matter was posted on 23.06.2025. On 24.07.2025, Mr Alok Lal, for the appellant, submitted that out of the two claimants, one claimant had died, who happens to be the husband of the 1st respondent, and as such, there is no necessity to file any substitution application in the present matter. 12. Thus, without receiving any compensation for the death of their son, one of the claimants died, thanks to the attitude of the Insurance Company and the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. Then, there are notings about some steps being taken for service upon the 1st respondent on the issue of abatement of the appeal on account of the demise of the 2nd respondent. (2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 4 Matter was adjourned on several dates, and on 26.11.2025, the appellant Insurance Company was directed to take steps for substituted service to be published in the local newspaper having wide circulation in the locality of the last known address of the 1st respondent. 13. Despite this order, it is now accepted that due to the mistake of the appellant Insurance Company, there was no paper publication. I.A. No. 6960 of 2026 very casually states that the draft notice sent by the Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company to the Insurance Company for publication in the newspaper ‘got misplaced in the office of the appellant and as such, the notice could not be published before the date fixed in the notice’. Now, after almost one year, i.e., on 12.05.2026, this fresh application has been filed for service on the 1st respondent. 14. This Court has taken the trouble to note most of the orders made in this matter, only to show how this Insurance Company and the owner/driver of the offending vehicle have succeeded in frustrating the legal process, not to say abusing it. This is a tragic case in which Uttam Das died in a vehicular accident at the age of 29 years. His parents, who were then aged 52 and 60 years, respectively, in 2007, filed a claim petition. The parents were awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 1,60,900/- under the impugned award dated 28th April 2015, i.e., about eleven years ago. Even this amount has not been paid to date, and for the last eleven years, no service has been effected upon the claimants. One of the claimants, i.e., Uttam Das’s father, died in the meantime. 15. Considering all these circumstances, I.A. No. 6960 of 2026 is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Further, for not taking steps to serve the most important parties in this appeal, i.e. the respondent nos. 1 and 2, out of which one of them has now died, this appeal is also liable to be (2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 5 dismissed and is hereby dismissed with exemplary costs. The IA and the Appeal are dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs payable by the Appellant, i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd, through its Senior Divisional Manager at Ranchi to the sole surviving Claimant. 16. The appellant Insurance is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, together with interest thereon, along with the costs amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs in this Court within four weeks from today, after adjusting the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Mr Alok Lal is requested to immediately communicate a copy of this order to the appellant Insurance Company so that it is complied with without further abuse of the legal process. 17. The Member Secretary of JHALSA, with the assistance of the Secretary of the relevant DLSA, must make every effort to contact Maya Das, i.e., Uttam Das’s mother, and ensure that the deposited amount is made available to her in her old age. A compliance report must be filed by the Member Secretary of JHALSA regarding the compliance with this direction by 05th of August, 2026. 18. As is usual, if by citing some operating procedures or bureaucratic delays, the amount is not deposited as directed, then the Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., at Ranchi must remain personally present in this Court and explain the reasons for such an insensitive attitude and non-compliance with the Court’s order. 19. A copy of this order must be placed before the Chairperson of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, so that the Chairperson has an idea of how his Insurance Company has displayed such a level of insensitivity in even paying a meagre compensation amount to the parents of 29th years old son who died in a vehicular accident. It is expected that the (2026: JHHC: 17857) p. 6 Chairperson takes serious note of this matter and reflect on whether this should be the attitude of a public-sector insurance company when dealing with its clients or their beneficiaries. 20. Mr Alok Lal has agreed to place a copy of this order before the Senior Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., at Ranchi at the earliest. 21. The Registrar General must ensure that a copy of this judgment and order is dispatched by courier to the Chairperson of New India Assurance Co. Ltd at Mumbai as expeditiously as possible. 22. Though the I.A. and the main appeal are hereby dismissed, the matter is posted on the 24th of July 2026, ‘First on Board’ for reporting compliance report, deposit of the awarded amount together with interest and the cost. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) June 19th, 2026 NAFR Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 20.06.2026