2026:JHHC:19618 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 353 of 2017 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. at 504- 5th Floor, Mahaveer Tower, Opposite Church Complex, Main Road, P.S Hindpirih, P.O. & District Ranchi ... ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Patrash Lugun son of Late Deva Lugun resident of Village Koelabeda, P.O.+ P.S.-Bano, District- Simdega 2. Chhotelal Munda son of Mulia Munda resident of Village & P.O. Swang P.S Jaldega District- Simdega (Owner) ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondent : None --------- 06/Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. None for the respondents. 3. Since this is an appeal of the year 2017, there is no point in adjourning this appeal. 4. The appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 8th March 2016 made by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Simdega in M.A.C.C. No. 24 of 2013. 5. The impugned Award’s operative portion reads as follows:- “13. It is, therefore..................ORDERED.......................... That the claimants are entitled to get compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,62,000/- (Rs. Four lacs Sixty Two Thousand) only with simple interest @ 9% till realization w.e.f. from 1st December, 2015 the month, when O.P. No. 2, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. appeared in the Tribunal. The claimants are also entitled Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) towards as loss of love and affection but without interest. The O.P. No. 2 Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to make payment of the compensation amount along with interest and the other amount of loss detailed above within 2026:JHHC:19618 -2- 30 days from the date of this order, failing which recovery shall be made through the process of the Tribunal/Court at the cost of Opposite Party No.2 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Let a copy of this Order/Judgment be sent to the Opposite part No.2 The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. At. 504-5 th Floor, Mahaveer Tower Opposite of Church Complex, Main Raod, Ranchi 1 by registered post at the cost of the applicants for its compliance.” 6. Mr Lal first submitted that in this case Birsa Lugun had borrowed a motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH01AU-4332 from the owner, and therefore he stepped into the owner's shoes. He further submitted that the owner had taken out only a P.A. policy, i.e., a Personal Accident Policy, for which a premium of only Rs.50/- was paid. He therefore submitted that Birsa Lugun, the borrower of the motorcycle from the actual owner, could never have been regarded as a third party. In any event, compensation not exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- would be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company on account of the demise of Birsa Lugun. 7. In support of the above contention, Mr Lal, relied upon the following decisions: - (i) Ramkhiladi and Ors Vs. The United India Insurance Company and Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 550; (ii) Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shakuntala Ganeriwal and Ors, M.A. No. 57 of 2012 decided on 25.04.2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. (iii) Arun Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar Sinha and Anr., M.A. No. 589 of 2018 decided on 16.12.2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2026:JHHC:19618 -3- (iv) The New India Assurance Company Limited, Patna Vs Chhaya Rani Dey, M.A. No. 2 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. Mr Lal submitted that the claimant, Patrash Lugun, is the only brother of the deceased, Birsa Lugun. There was no evidence that the claimant was dependent on Birsa Lugun’s income. Therefore, the respondent-claimant could not have been awarded any compensation in this matter on account of Birsa Lugun’s death. Mr Lal further submitted that the accident was due to Birsa Lugun’s rash and negligent driving. He pointed out that a charge-sheet had been filed against Birsa Lugun for rash and negligent driving. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no question of maintaining any claim petition, as the deceased, Birsa Lugun, was himself responsible for the accident. Finally, Mr Lal submitted that award of interest @ 9 per cent per annum is excessive and the same should be reduced. 9. Insofar as the first ground raised by Mr Lal is concerned, the record shows that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant and such insurance was valid from 26.07.2012 to the mid- night of 25.07.2013. The nature of the policy was “Two Wheeler Package Policy Scheme”. This is the finding of fact, i.e. supported by the evidence on record and warrants no interference. 10. The Tribunal has referred to I.R.D.A. circular dated 16.11.2009, which defines the insurer’s liability in respect of the “Standard Motor Package Policy”, i.e., the comprehensive policy for private cars and two-wheelers under the erstwhile India Motor Tariff. This circular includes coverage to a pillion rider on a motorcycle and an occupant in a private car if they are not carried in the vehicle for hire or reward. 2026:JHHC:19618 -4- 11. Considering the above, I find no merit in the first contention raised by Mr Lal. His contention that only a premium of Rs. 50/- has been paid for P.A. cover is incorrect. There is a record that an additional premium of Rs. 790/- was also paid. There is not even an allegation that the deceased was driving for hire or reward. 12. This was a case of a comprehensive policy, and, considering the ambiguities in its terms, the Tribunal correctly placed reliance upon I.R.D.A. circular dated 16.11.2009 and, based thereon, held the appellant-Insurance company liable. 13. In the decisions relied upon by Mr Alok Lal, there was no dispute that the policy in question was only a P.A. policy. In contrast, in this case the Tribunal, based on the material on record, has found that the policy was comprehensive. The policy was interpreted in light of the I.R.D.A. circular, and the Insurance Company was held liable. Therefore, based on the cited decision, the Insurance Company cannot, in the facts of the present case, avoid liability. 14. The second contention is that the claimant was not a dependent of the deceased, Birsa Lugun. Here again, no foundation is laid in the pleadings or in the evidence. Even during cross-examination, there was no challenge to the claimant’s status as a dependent of the deceased. Therefore, there is no scope to dismiss the claim petition based on the contention now raised. 15. As regards the third contention, it is true that the charge-sheet was filed against Birsa Lugun. However, there is evidence that the accident occurred when a dog suddenly appeared on the road, forcing Birsa Lugun to lose control, fall to the ground, suffer injuries, and ultimately die because of those injuries. Therefore, based on the filing of the charge-sheet, which could not even go to trial because Birsa 2026:JHHC:19618 -5- Lugun died, it would not be safe to hold that the accident was due to the negligence of Birsa Lugun and to deny the claimant compensation. 16. Insofar as the interest is concerned, no case has been made out for interference, as the accident took place on 29.09.2012. Besides, this is yet another case where the appellant-Insurance Company filed a matter beyond the prescribed limitation period and then spent an unreasonable amount of time serving the respondents. Even after the delay was condoned, the appellant spent further time. Thus, in respect of an accident which took place on 29.09.2012, till date, the appellant-Insurance Company secured neither any interim relief nor bothered to comply with the directions in the impugned Award. 17. The conduct of the appellant-Insurance Company has been grossly unfair. The impugned award had directed them to pay the amounts to the claimants. Even though no interim relief was granted by any Court, the appellant-Insurance Company, by simply pending this appeal and by delaying service of notices, has succeeded in preventing payment of any amount to the claimant to date. Looking to the conduct, the appellant-Insurance Company will certainly delay the matter further if the claimant is forced to file for execution. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only). Further, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount together with interest and costs in this Court within six weeks from today after giving due notice to the Member Secretary, JHALSA. 19. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, JHALSA. If the amount is not 2026:JHHC:19618 -6- deposited within six weeks from today, the Registry is to place the matter for ‘Orders’ on 21st August 2026. 20. The appeal is dismissed with costs, but the appellant must report compliance by 18th August, 2026. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 03.07.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 07.07.2026