Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 511 of 2015 Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sector-I, Ram Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District – Bokaro, duly represented through its Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Post Office-G.P.O., Police Station-Kotwali, District - Ranchi-834001. ... Defendant no.3/Appellant Versus 1. Kamlesh Kumar, s/o Late Dhaneshwari Devi, 2. Udesh Kumar, s/o late Dhaneshwari Devi, 3. Laxmi Kumari, d/o late Dhaneshwari Devi, 4. Dukhit Ram (since dead), s/o late Mishree Ram, resident of Sector- 12/E, Quarter No. 4263, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District – Bokaro. (owner of Motorcycle No. BPO-9113) (Name deleted vide order dated 25.02.2020) …… Applicants/Respondents 5. Uday Bhan Kumar, s/o Dukhit Ram, resident of Sector-12/E, Quarter No. 4263, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District – Bokaro. (driver of Motorcycle No. BPO- 9113). ... Defendant Nos.1 & 2/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Pratyush Kumar, Advocate Ms Taru Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Ishan Aashish, Advocate Mr Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate --------- 26/Dated: 29.08.2026 1. Heard Mr Pratyush Kumar who appears with Ms. Taru Gupta for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr Ishan Ashish for the respondents-claimants. 2. This appeal by the Insurance Company challenges the judgment and award dated 3rd August 2015 in T.M.V. No. 24 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro (Tribunal). Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 2 3. Mr Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in this case the deceased Dhaneshwari Devi was a pillion rider on Motorcycle No. BPO-9113 (insured vehicle) and the insurance was an “Act Only Policy”. Therefore, the same did not cover the case of a pillion rider. He relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 404. 4. Mr Pratyush Kumar further submitted that the rider of the insured vehicle was none other than Dukhit Ram, the husband of Dhaneshwari Devi, who died during the pendency of this appeal. He submitted that, accordingly, the insured vehicle was inherited by the claimants, who are the children of Dhaneshwari Devi and Dukhit Ram. He further submitted that, under such circumstances, the claim by the claimants, who are now to be regarded as owners of the insured vehicle, would not be maintainable. He relied on Ramkhiladi and Another v. The United India Insurance Company and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550, in support of this contention. 5. Mr Ishan Aashish, the learned counsel for the claimants, defended the impugned award on the basis of the reasoning set out therein. He further pointed out that there was no pleading to support the first ground now advanced by Mr Pratyush Kumar. He also noted that the second ground had not been urged before the Tribunal and should not now be raised for the first time in this appeal. He submitted that, even otherwise, both grounds were untenable and Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 3 that the impugned award warranted no interference on such grounds. 6. Mr Ishan Aashish pointed out that the decision in Tilak Singh (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case because this was not an “Act Only Policy”. He pointed out that the burden is on the Insurance Company to establish that the claim was not covered under the policy. The Insurance Company, in this case, has not led any evidence or discharged this burden. 7. In any event, Mr Ishan Ashish pointed out that the decision in Tilak Singh (supra) was doubted by a later Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a reference has been made to a larger Bench to reconsider the same. He referred to the order dated 25.08.2022 in Mohana Krishnan S v. K. Balasubramaniyam and Others, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3433 of 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Based on the above, Mr Ishan Aashish submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 9. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 10. As regards the first contention of Mr Pratyush Kumar, reference can be made to the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company in response to the claim statement. 11. In paragraph 1 of the written statement, it is stated that the deceased was the wife of O.P. No. 1, Dukhit Ram, the owner of the insured motorcycle, and that the claimants were the children of Dhaneshwari Devi and Dukhit Ram. From this, the Insurance Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 4 Company concludes in paragraph 1 that Dhaneshwari Devi was not a “Third Party” and, as such, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the demise of Dhaneshwari Devi. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, the Insurance Company again pleads the same point and urges that the claim petition should be dismissed as against the appellant-Insurance Company. 12. Significantly, the entire written statement contains no plea that the insurance policy in this case was an “Act Only Policy”. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy under which liability is now sought to be avoided have also not been pleaded. The appellant- Insurance Company did not lead any evidence in this matter, produce the complete insurance policy, point out its terms and conditions and explain the basis for avoidance of liability. In such circumstances, there is no error in the impugned award foisting the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 13. Mr Pratyush Kumar, however, referred to the Certificate of Insurance produced by the claimants on record. He submitted that since the Certificate contains an endorsement that it was “Liability Only”, the insurance policy must be regarded as an “Act Only Policy”, which, according to him, excludes the liability for death or injury to a pillion rider. 14. The Certificate of Insurance contains an endorsement, “Liability Only”. However, there is a difference between a Certificate of Insurance and the actual Insurance Policy. Besides, the expression Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 5 “Liability Only” should have been explained by the appellant- Insurance Company by leading oral and documentary evidence. Based merely upon such an endorsement and without leading any evidence and producing the insurance policy along with its terms and conditions, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot wriggle out of the liability based on the grounds urged. 15. Thus, there are no clear pleadings to support the avoidance of liability. Further, the appellant-Insurance Company failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence to justify the avoidance of liability. Thirdly, based on the vague endorsement in the Certificate of Insurance produced by the claimants, there is nothing to suggest that the liability could be avoided in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the insurance company cannot avoid liability. 16. For the decision in Tilak Singh (supra) to apply, the factual position that the policy in question was an “Act Only” policy needed to be established. In this case, this factual position has not been established. Therefore, based upon Tilak Singh’s case (supra) and presuming that the insurance policy in this case did not cover a pillion rider, liability cannot be avoided. 17. In the order cited by Mr Ishan Aashish, the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has questioned whether the ‘Third Party’ includes all persons other than the insured, who is the First Party and the insurer, who is the Second Party. A prima facie opinion has been expressed that all other persons who are neither Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 6 the insured nor the insurer will be the third parties and will be covered by an “Act Only Policy”. 18. A mere reference or expression of doubt by a coordinate Bench may not erase the efficacy of a doubted precedent. However, as noted earlier, there is no evidence that the policy in question is an “Act Only Policy”. Accordingly, the decision in Tilak Singh (supra) would not assist the appellant-Insurance Company, and the first contention on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 19. Insofar as Mr Pratyush Kumar’s second contention is concerned, it is entirely misconceived. The status of the claimants’ claim must be adjudicated at the time of its institution. In any event, the claimants are now pursuing the claim in their own and original capacity as the dependants of Dhaneshwari Devi. Therefore, based on the alleged grounds that they have now become the owners of the insured vehicle and the principle in Ramkhiladi (supra) applies, their claim cannot be defeated. Moreover, there is no evidence on the status of the vehicle post the accident. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was inherited by the claimants, or the claimants became the owners of the vehicle. The insurance company's contentions contain inherent contradictions. 20. Based upon such contradictory contentions, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned award. No other contention was raised in this appeal. The two contentions raised do not deserve any acceptance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:26014 p. 7 21. Mr Pratyush Kumar states that the awarded compensation was deposited before the Executing Court. If so, the Executing Court must now allow the claimants to withdraw the same along with interest that shall have accrued on the said amount. 22. The learned counsel for the claimants states that he will provide the necessary identity and bank details to the Executing Court, whereupon the Executing Court must transfer the amounts to their respective bank accounts at the earliest. Under no circumstances should the amounts be paid otherwise than through the regular banking channels. 23. Once the compensation amount is paid/transferred to the claimants, the Registry can allow the appellant-Insurance Company to withdraw the statutory deposited amount of Rs. 25,000/-along with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on the said amount. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) August 29, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 31.08.2026