2026:JHHC:24455 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 302 of 2016 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, having its Division Office, at B. P. Agarwalla Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhansar, District -Dhanbad and policy issuing office at Near Bus Stands, Barakar, District-Burdwan (W.B.) (Insurer of truck bearing registration no.WB-37-6277) ... Appellant Versus 1. Asha Devi wife of late Raju Barnawal @ Rajendra Prasad. 2. Soni Kumari daughter of late Raju Barnawal @ Rajendra Prasad. 3. Swapna Kumari daughter of late Raju Barnawal @ Rajendra Prasad. 4. Sunju Kumari daughter of late Raju Barnawal @ Rajendra Prasad. 5. Suraj Kumar son of late Raju Barnawal @ Rajendra Prasad. (Plaintiff no.2, 3, 4 & 5 minor hence they being represented by their mother-cum-natural guardian namely Asha Devi, Plaintiff No.1) All R/O. Cinema Hall, Nirsa, P.O. & P.S.-Nirsa, Dist - Dhanbad. Jharkhand. 7. Sunil Singh S/o. Sri Ram Singh, St. No.41, Qrt No.01/29 A, P.O. Chittaranjan P.S. Chittaranjan, District-Burdwan (Owner of truck bearing registration no. WB-37-6277) … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate. Mr Shivam Kumar, Advocate. --------- 19/Dated: 14.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 2 2. I.A. No. 1306 of 2017 has been filed seeking condonation of a 72-day delay in preferring the accompanying appeal. As sufficient cause has been demonstrated, the delay is hereby condoned, and I.A. No. 1306 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. 3. The present appeal was instituted on 18.06.2016; however, the filing defects remained uncleared for a considerable duration. Subsequently, the appellant-Insurance Company spent significant time effecting service upon the respondents. Only in 2025 did the appellant apply for leave to serve the unserved respondents via substituted service, which was ultimately completed in June 2026. 4. The record indicates that procedural delays in this appeal have effectively prevented the claimants from realising their awarded compensation in a timely manner. Specifically, under the order dated 19th April 2017, the Insurance Company obtained a stay of execution subject to a deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal had awarded Rs.17,40,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition. 5. Upon obtaining the interim stay, the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence, spending several years merely to serve the respondents. 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 3 This lack of diligence on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company warrants disapproval. 6. The appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21st December, 2015 in Title (MV) Case No. 66 of 2014, rendered by the District Judge-XIV-cum-MACT, Dhanbad. 7. Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company, submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the driver of the insured vehicle held a valid driving licence. He further contended that the record lacked evidence to establish that the insured vehicle possessed a valid permit or fitness certificate to operate on the road. 8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, Mr Lal submitted that the burden of proof lay on the claimants, or at the very least on the owner of the insured vehicle, to produce the driving licence, fitness certificate, and permit. It was contended that in the absence of these documents, liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company or, in any event, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation first and recover it from the owner. 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 4 9. In this case, the Insurance Company has filed a written statement in response to the claim petition. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, it is pleaded as follows: - “7. That, it is respectfully submitted by the answering defen-dant the owner of Truck No. WB-37-6277 must be called upon to produce original permit and fitness certificate of Truck No. WB-37-6277 and original driving licence of the charge sheeted driver of Truck No. WB-37-6277 in court in order to show that on the alleged date of accident the vehicular documents of the Truck was valid and effective and the driver of the Truck had got valid, effective and genuine driving licence to drive the said Truck No. WB-37-6277.” 10. The aforesaid pleadings do not contain a categorical denial that the insured truck lacked a valid permit or fitness certificate, or that its driver was unlicensed. The averments in paragraph 7 merely call upon the vehicle’s owner and driver to produce these documents. In the absence of a specific plea, there was no necessity to entertain this ground of appeal. 11. Additionally, regarding the driving licence, the Tribunal took cognisance of Exhibit-8, which established that the driver held a valid licence until 3rd January 2015, thereby covering the date of the accident on 25.06.2008. Furthermore, based on Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the truck possessed a valid fitness certificate. Though the issue of a permit was not specifically discussed, given 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 5 the nature of the Insurance Company’s pleadings, there was no requirement for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon it. 12. Since the appellant-Insurance Company alleged a fundamental breach of policy conditions without supporting pleadings, the burden of proving such a breach rested squarely on the insurer. Apart from the absence of requisite pleadings, the Insurance Company adduced no evidence in support of its contention. No officials/authorities from the Regional Transport Office were summoned to testify regarding the existence of a valid permit for the truck at the time of the accident, nor did the insurer made any independent efforts to ascertain whether a permit had been issued. 13. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 249 of 2017 (Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yasoda Devi & Ors.), wherein an identical contention based upon misreading the ratio of Amrit Paul Singh (Supra), was rejected. 14. This Court relied on National Insurance Company Limited versus Swarn Singh [(2004) 3 SCC 297], and Narcinva V. Kamat and Another Versus Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Others [1985 ACJ 397 (SC)], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the onus of establishing 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 6 fundamental breach of terms of the Insurance Policy would lie upon the Insurance Company which raises such a plea. 15. In fact, in the latter case of Narcinva V. Kamat (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the insured is not under an obligation to furnish evidence to enable the Insurance Company to wriggle out of its liability. 16. The decision in Amrit Paul Singh (Supra) is distinguishable because, in that case, it was clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have the permit. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principle laid down in Swarn Singh (Supra) and Lakhmi Chand Versus Reliance General Insurance [(2016) 3 SCC 100] would not be applicable. 17. This means that Amrit Paul Singh (Supra) has not dissented from the view taken in Swarn Singh (Supra) or, for that matter, Narcinva V. Kamat (Supra). 18. For the reasons stated above, the sole ground urged in support of this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. 19. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not reflect just compensation. The same should be suitably enhanced. 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 7 20. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it is well-settled that it is the duty of this Court to determine the just compensation irrespective of whether the same is claimed or not. Similarly, in the case of Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhate & Ors. v. Santosh s/o Namdeo Jadhav & Ors, (2021) 16 SCC 467 as also in the case of Rani & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors, (2018) 8 SCC 492 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation amount can be enhanced even in the absence of any cross objections being filed on behalf of the claimant because ultimately, it is the duty of the Court to determine just compensation. 21. Surprisingly, in this case, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, but failed to follow it. 22. The Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas the permissible amount under settled law is Rs. 15,000/- for each head. Further, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, overlooking the five other claimants. In accordance with established legal principles, loss of consortium ought to have been awarded at Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant. The failure to do so 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 8 constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, as it directly conflicts with the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 23. Reliance in this regard is placed on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that consortium encompasses spousal, parental, and filial consortium, awarding Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant under these heads while reaffirming Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. These principles were subsequently reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, confirming that each eligible claimant is entitled to separate loss of consortium alongside the conventional heads 24. The compensation will therefore have to be enhanced by a further amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. 25. The appellant-Insurance Company must now deposit the balance compensation as well as the enhanced compensation in this Court within six weeks from today after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. 26. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same upon furnishing of identity and bank details. Under no 2026:JHHC:24455 p. 9 circumstances should the amount be disbursed other than through the banking channels. 27. The statutory deposited amount and the amount already deposited can be adjusted while depositing the balance amount. 28. IAs, if any, pending in this appeal, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 14.08.2026 A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 18.08.2026