2026:JHHC:5185 -1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2014 SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY son of Late Janardan Choudhary, resident of Dumka (Bhagalpur Road), PO-Dumka Town, P.S.- Dumka Town, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. (registered owner of Bus) … Appellant Versus (1) Mostt. Kaijan Bibi wife of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (2) Tanvir Hassan son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (3) Zaffar Ekbal, son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (4) Umnechani Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (5) Sarfaraj Ansari son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (6) Tarik Anwar son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (7) Umme Enan Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (8) Umme Habiba Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (9) Misbaul Hussan son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (10) Mehar Atsa Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (11) Tabesh Zaffar son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari (As per age mentioned in claim petition filed by the claimants now respondent no. 3 to 7 became major and respondent no. 8 to 11 are minors and represented through their natural guardian i.e. mother Mostt. Kaijan Bibi.) All resident of Taljhari (Nawadih) Banjhi Panchayat, P.O. Poraiyahat P.S. Poraiyahat (Deodanr) and District- Godda. (12) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Shyam Bazar Road, Dumka Branch, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, Dumka, Jharkhand. (13) Munilal Yadav, son of Nakul Yadav, resident of Dhaka, P.O. Barahat, P.S.-Barahat, District- Banka (Bihar). … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate --------- 17/Dated:20.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges Award dated 23.06.2014 made by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Godda to the extent it imposes the entire liability on the appellant-owner of the offending an insured 2026:JHHC:5185 -2 of 5- vehicle and absolves the Insurance Company. No doubt, the impugned Award has determined that even the deceased contributed to his demise in the accident and to that extent, determined the contributory liability to the extent of 20 per cent i.e. Rs.72,000/-. 3. The Tribunal firstly held that the appellant had failed to produce any transport permit based upon which passengers were being carried in the offending vehicle i.e. Bus No. BR-35-4155. Secondly, the Tribunal has held that even carrying passengers on the ladder behind the bus or on the roof of the bus amounts to a breach of one of the fundamental terms of the insurance policy. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide I.A. No. 3974 of 2025, the appellant was permitted to produce additional documentary evidence on record. This includes the stage carriage permit in the prescribed form and a temporary permit. He submitted that both these documents would show that there were valid permits at the time of the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, on account of the Lok Sabha elections, there was an unprecedented rush, and despite protests from the driver and the conductor, several passengers, including the deceased, climbed onto the roof of the bus or clung to the ladder behind the bus. He submitted that, in such circumstances, it should not be held that the owner had committed any breach of the insurance policy terms. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal vs. Parwati 2026:JHHC:5185 -3 of 5- Devi and others, reported in (2005) SCC OnLine Jhar 199 to support his contentions. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there was no reason why the two permits were not produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. He submitted that such belated evidence, without explaining due diligence, should not be considered. In any event, he submitted that Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 titled Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Giriraj Prasad Agrawal and Others against the decision of the Full Bench in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal (supra) was disposed of by holding that the Insurance Company would be entitled to pay and recover order. 8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 9. The appellant’s application invoking the principles under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence is already allowed by order dated 27.11.2025. In any event, the evidence sought to be produced is documents issued by public authorities, i.e. Stage Carriage Permit and temporary permit. Both the documents suggest that the offending bus had a permit to carry passengers, and the validity of such Stage Carriage Permit was from 21.11.2001 to 20.11.2006. Besides, even a temporary permit with validity period from 05.04.2004 to 07.04.2004 is produced on record. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant explained that this occurred during the Lok Sabha elections. The accident was on 05.04.2004. Therefore, based upon the documentary evidence now admitted at the appellate stage, the ground that the offending vehicle 2026:JHHC:5185 -4 of 5- was carrying passengers without a valid permit will no longer hold good. 11. Nevertheless, the evidence on record merely shows that passengers, including the deceased, were travelling on the ladder annexed to the bus. The Full Bench in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal (supra) has held that even in respect of passengers travelling on the roof, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the exclusion of the owner of the bus involved in the accident. However, the Insurance Company appealed the Full Bench decision vide Civil Appeal No.2421 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 16th January 2014, disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 by making the following order:- “National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. It challenges the award passed by the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court. On 3rd October, 2005, this Court while issuing notice, confined it to the respondent No.1, namely, the owner of the vehicle, with reference to right of the appellant to recover the awarded amount from the insured. Though, notice duly been served on the respondent No.1, for the reasons best known to him, he has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel. We were taken through the award passed by the Tribunal, as well as the reasons in the order of the High Court. In view of the limited notice and the fact that in this appeal, there is no need to go into other aspects, leaving the question of law to be decided in an appropriate case, we permit the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the respondent No.1-insured. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.” 13. Accordingly, the interest of justice would be met if the impugned Award is modified by directing the Insurance Company to first pay the 2026:JHHC:5185 -5 of 5- awarded amount together with interest to the claimants within two months from the uploading of this judgment and order and then to recover this amount from the appellant. 14. The impugned Award is modified to this extent. 15. The appeal is disposed of without any order for costs. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of the order. 16. Interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 20.02.2026 APK/VK Uploaded on 24.02.2026