2026:JHHC:19617 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2017 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Gumla Branch, Palkot Road, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla … … … Appellant Versus 1. Gomati Devi Wife of Dashrath Prasad, resident of Village, P.O. & P.S. Kolebira, District- Simdega 2. Akbar Khan son of Ismail Khan C/o Tanweer Khan Residing at Qr. No. H-25, Sector- 15, Rourkela P.O. P.S & District- Sundergarh Odhisa PIN 769001 … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate --------- 12 /Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and Award dated 29th August, 2016 made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Simdega in M.A.C.C. Case No. 30 of 2015. 3. This appeal was instituted on 04.01.2017 beyond a prescribed period of limitation. 4. Since an I.A. was filed for condonation of delay, notices were issued to the respondents on 16.12.2019. By the same order, the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs before the Tribunal. It was further directed that the same should be disbursed in favour of the claimant after due notice and verification. 5. Mr Alok Lal states that Rs. 15 lakhs was deposited before the Tribunal, but he is unaware whether the same was disbursed to the claimant. 2026:JHHC:19617 -2- 6. The record shows that between 16.12.2019 and 22.03.2022, i.e., for almost 3 years, no significant steps were adopted to serve the respondents/claimant. Prompt service upon the respondents was necessary in this matter because this Court, on 16.12.2019, had directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs before the Tribunal with a further direction that this amount should be disbursed to the claimant after due notice and verification. If, for three years, no notice was served, the claimant would not even be able to know about this order and to withdraw the amount she was allowed to withdraw by this Court’s order dated 16.12.2019. 7. On 22.03.2022, this Court held that, since no right of recovery had been granted in favour of the Insurance Company, there was no need to issue a fresh notice to the vehicle owner. The Court recorded that notice upon the 1st respondent has been validly served. Based upon this, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was directed to be listed for “Admission”. 8. By the time the matter came up for “Admission” on 8th April, 2024, the assignment had changed, and the matter came up before a different Hon’ble Judge. On this occasion, a fresh notice was ordered upon the 2nd respondent. Mr Alok Lal, appeared before the Court on 8th April, 2024. It does not appear that the order made by the previous Bench on 22.03.2022 was brought to the notice of the learned Judge who made the order on 8th April, 2024. 9. After that, almost two years were spent to serve the 2nd respondent. Now, Mr Lal states that the 2nd respondent has been served by substituted service, and a supplementary affidavit, along with paper publication, has also been filed and is on record. 2026:JHHC:19617 -3- 10. By previous orders, the records and proceedings of the Trial Court have also been called. 11. Mr Lal argues that in this case the deceased was the occupant of the insured vehicle. He submits that the insurance policy in this case did not cover such an occupant and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in foisting liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 12. Though Mr Lal has not shown me the written statement in this matter, he referred to paragraph 5 of the impugned Award and, based on the same, submitted that such a plea was in fact raised before the Tribunal. 13. He now says that such plea was raised in para 14 of the written statement. 14. Para 14 of the written statement reads as follows: - “(14) That, without prejudice to the contentions raised here in above, this O.,P. seeks protection under the provisions of section 147 of the M.V. Act 1988.” 15. The above plea in paragraph 14 can hardly be regarded as a proper plea in support of the defence that is now raised by Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant. Besides, mere raising of a plea in the written statement is never sufficient. Such a plea has to be pressed before the Tribunal, and further, some evidence also has to be produced in support of such plea. 16. I have perused paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and Award. There is nothing in this paragraph to suggest that the vague plea raised in paragraph 14 of the written statement was pressed before the Tribunal. In fact, what was stated was that the opposite party should be directed to produce the valid insurance policy. For the Insurance Company to insist 2026:JHHC:19617 -4- that the claimant should produce the insurance policy is quite a strange stance. 17. Based on the vague plea, which was not even pressed before the Tribunal and, consequently, no issue was framed in that regard, the rights of the claimant cannot be defeated by the Insurance Company. 18. As it is, the Insurance Company has not been fair in this matter. An unreasonable amount of time was taken only to effect service. At the stage of condonation, the same was secured even without serving the owner. After the condonation was secured, 2 to 3 years’ time were spent to serve the owner. There was complete lack of diligence on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company. 19. Based on the vague plea which was not even pressed, it is not possible to hold that any liability towards the deceased or the deceased’s dependents was not covered under the insurance policy. It is the duty of the insurance policy to raise clear pleas so that they can be answered or dealt with by the other parties, including the claimant. That is the purpose of pleadings. Further, it is not sufficient to raise such pleas; they must be pressed before the Tribunal and finally made good. None of these things has been done by the appellant-Insurance Company. 20. By unreasonably delaying the service, the appellant-Insurance Company has deprived the claimant of the compensation awarded in her favour. The compensation awarded in this case was Rs. 17,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order, i.e., 29.08.2016. In fact, the interest should have been awarded from the date of the application and not from the date of the order. That would amount to just compensation. 21. Mr Alok Lal submitted that this was also a case in which the driver did not have a valid licence. Since the mother was the claimant, the 2026:JHHC:19617 -5- deduction should not have been 1/3rd but 1½. He now points out that the interest should also not have been awarded at 12% per annum. 22. As regards the driving licence, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence. Since the Insurance Company was alleging the fundamental breach of the insurance policy, it was for the Insurance Company to have led evidence on this aspect. The Tribunal has noted that even the driver of the offending vehicle has died in the said accident. 23. As for the deduction, this is a case in which Gomati Devi, the mother of the deceased, Braj Mohan Prasad, has filed a claim petition. The plea about deduction which is now raised, was never raised before the Tribunal. Such pleas have not even been raised in the appeal memo. 24. Mr Lal refers to general grounds that there is some error in determining the compensation amount and based thereon, seeks to press this plea. In any case, considering the circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no merit in the plea now raised. 25. As regards the interest rate, again, no such ground finds mention in the appeal memo. In any event, this is a case of an accident which took place in 2014. The conduct of the appellant-Insurance Company in this case is such as to warrant the imposition of exemplary costs. The costs are not imposed. In any case, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, no case has been made out to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal. 26. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, interest at the awarded rate is directed to be paid not only from the date of the order but also from the date of institution of the claim petition, which is 30th July, 2015. 2026:JHHC:19617 -6- 27. The Insurance Company must deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from today. 28. If the claimant has till date not withdrawn the deposited amount and the balance amount as and when it is deposited, the Tribunal must disburse the same to the claimant, upon verifying the identity of the claimant. The amount must be transferred into the bank account of the claimant. The orders for investment etc. are maintained. 29. The appeal should have been dismissed with cost. However, taking cognisance of the fact that the appellant-Insurance Company had already deposited Rs. 15 lakhs before the Tribunal, no costs are now imposed. 30. The statutory amount should be transferred to the Tribunal, and if the appellant-Insurance Company deposits the balance compensation within four weeks from today, it can adjust this amount. 31. Though the appeal is being disposed of, considering how the Insurance Company has acted in this case, the Regional Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company must file a compliance report in this case regarding the deposit of the balance compensation amount together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the claim petition. Full calculations must be given. Such affidavit must be filed by 5th August 2026. 32. The appeal is disposed. But list the matter for “Orders” to consider the compliance report on 7th August 2026. The Registry must place the matter on the said date, irrespective of whether the Regional Manager has filed the compliance affidavit. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) July 03, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 07.07.2026