Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 272 of 2023 Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, CB-3 Ranchi Dangra Toli Chowk, Purlia Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, PO.O. Ranchi, District – Ranchi, through Deputy Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, having its Office at Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi (Opp. Party No. 4) …. Appellant Versus 1. Arti Devi wife of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar 2. Ayush Kumar son of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar 3. Archana Kumari, daughter of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar, (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are minors represented through their mother being natural guardian as their next friend) All residing at Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Applicant/ Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively) 4. Sanjay Sahu Son of Gyani Sahu resident of Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Ostensible Owner of the offending vehicle Reg. No.UP 64A- 4376) (Opp. Party No. 1) 5. Awadh Prasad son of Sanjay Sahu (Driver) resident of Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Driver) Opposite Party No.2) 6. Arun Kumar Prasad son of Late Heeralal Prasad resident of village Ganga Nagar. Badri Bhawan Gali, Ratu Road, P.S Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O. & District- Ranchi (Registered owner of Jeep UP 64A-4376) (Opposite Party No.3) ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1,2&3: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No.6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate --------- 12/Dated: 15.01.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 3. This is because it arises out of an accident which took place in the year 2008, in which Bijay Sahu, aged 40 years, lost his life. 4. His widow and two minor children instituted a claim petition, in which they were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,79,600/- by the impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2023. 5. Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that in this case, the insured vehicle, i.e. Jeep bearing Registration No. UP 64A-4376 was not involved in the accident. He submitted that this is in fact the stand taken by the registered owner, i.e. Respondent No. 6 in this present appeal, in his written statement. He submitted that in collusion with the Motor Vehicle Inspector and other police authorities, this vehicle was shown as involved, but, in fact, the same was not at all involved. Mr Alok Lal submitted that on this ground, there was no question of fastening any liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 6. Mr Alok Lal, without prejudice to the above, submitted that there was evidence that the insured vehicle was a private vehicle, but at the time of the accident, the same was given out for hire. The status of the deceased Bijay Sahu was that of a non-gratuitous passenger or a fare- paying passenger. Mr Alok Lal submitted that this was a clear breach of the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, no liability could have been foisted upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 7. Mr Alok Lal also tried to contend that, in this case, no evidence was produced to show that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed a Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 valid driving license. He submitted that in the absence of evidence about the driver having a valid driving license, no liability could have been foisted on the appellant-Insurance Company. 8. Mr. Alok Lal fairly accepted that in a claim arising out of this very accident, the appellant-Insurance Company settled the matter with some other claimant in the Lok Adalat proceedings. However, he submitted that there can be neither estoppel against the law nor equality of illegalities. Therefore, merely because the appellant-Insurance Company may have settled the amount with some of the claimants in the Lok Adalat, upon coming to know of the fraud involved, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be compelled to perpetuate such fraud. 9. For all the above reasons, Mr Alok Lal submitted that the impugned judgment and award warrant interference. He submitted that the impugned judgment and award must be set aside on the above grounds urged by him on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. However, without prejudice, he submitted that the award could be modified by making a pay-and-recover order, as under no circumstances could the liability be foisted on the appellant-Insurance Company in this case. 10. Mr Arbind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the registered owner, reiterated the submissions made by the registered owner, i.e., the 6th Respondent, in the written statement. However, without prejudice, he submitted that even if it is held that the offending vehicle Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 was involved in the accident, still, there is no dispute that the same was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, there was no question of the appellant-Insurance Company refusing to indemnify the registered owner or urging that the pay and recover order be made. 11. Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the claimants, defended the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that no evidence was led on behalf of the registered owner or the Insurance Company. He submitted that the onus was clearly upon the said parties to make good the otherwise false defences raised by them. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award except that the impugned judgment and award failed to provide for loss of parental consortium to the two minor children of deceased Bijay Sahu. He submitted that it is the duty of the Court to determine an award of “just compensation” irrespective of whether or not such compensation is claimed. Therefore, he urged that the compensation amount be enhanced by another Rs.80,000/- i.e. parental consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each. He relied upon Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram1. 12. Rival contentions now fall for our determination. 13. This is a case where Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad @ Bijay Kumar died in a vehicular accident that took place on 10.07.2008. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of the fatal accident. The claim 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 petition was instituted by his widow, who was then 33 years old, his son, then 13 years old, and his daughter, then 07 years old. 14. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,79,600/-. along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. 15. Based upon the rival contentions, the following points for determination arise in this appeal:- (i) Whether the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. UP 64A-4376 was at all involved in the accident, or it was merely shown to be involved as contended by the registered owner, i.e. Respondent No. 6 herein? (ii) Whether the offending vehicle, though a private Jeep, was being used for hire or reward, and further, the deceased Bijay Sahu was a non-gratuitous or a fare- paying passenger therein at the time of the accident? (iii)Was the driver of the offending vehicle in possession of a valid driving licence? (iv) Whether driving the offending vehicle by a person possessing no valid driving licence or using the offending vehicle for hire or reward amounts to a breach of the terms of the insurance policy, thereby relieving the Insurance Company of any liability? Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 (v) Whether the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified for not awarding any compensation towards parental consortium to the two minor children? 16. Insofar as the first point is concerned, while it is true that the registered owner, i.e. the 6th respondent, in his written statement took up a plea that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that the same was shown as involved on account of the collusion between one Sanjay Sahu, Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Police authorities, still, neither the registered owner nor any other witness deposed to this plea of non-involvement. In fact, neither the registered owner nor the insurance company examined any witnesses regarding such a plea. 17. There is both documentary and oral evidence on record showing the offending vehicle's involvement in the accident. The evidence is more than sufficient, at least for the onus to have shifted upon the registered owner or the Insurance Company, assuming that the Insurance Company could raise such a defense. However, the registered owner did not bother to step into the witness box or even examine any other witnesses in support of this theory, which was propounded in the written statement. 18. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting this theory propounded by the registered owner. The appellant-Insurance Company cannot, therefore, take advantage of this unproven theory and seek to avoid liability. Admittedly, the offending Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, and this point was not even disputed. 19. Accordingly, the first point for determination is liable to be answered against the appellant and/or the 6th Respondent. 20. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, there is again no evidence whatsoever that the offending vehicle was used for hire or reward, or that the late Bijay Sahu was a fare-paying or non- gratuitous passenger therein. Since the Insurance Company alleges a breach of the insurance policy, the burden was on it to establish this fact. No evidence was led on this aspect, or, rather, on behalf of the Insurance Company. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting this defence. 21. Insofar as the third point for determination is concerned, there is a doubt as to whether this point was even raised in the written statement of the Insurance Company. However, assuming that such a point was raised, then some evidence should have been led to show that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed no licence. Some evidence could have been produced by examining the Motor Vehicle authorities or even by summoning the driver to depose in the matter. In the absence of all these, the point now raised cannot be determined in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. 22. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it appears that this point about the driver possessing no licence was not even raised before the Tribunal. This is an issue requiring adjudication Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 facts. If such a point was not even raised, such a point cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this appeal. In any event, even upon allowing the appellant-Insurance Company to raise such a point, there is no evidence to uphold such a contention. Therefore, even this point is decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. 23. This is a case where the Tribunal has determined the total compensation at Rs.4,79,600/- by awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram (supra) and in the case of Harpreet Kaur and Ors v. Mohinder Yadav and Ors2, it has been held that compensation towards consortium, be it spousal, filial or parent, has to be awarded to each of the claimants @ Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to award compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each to Bijay Sahu’s children. 24. In such matters, a duty is cast upon the Courts to determine “just compensation” irrespective of whether or not the claimants may have claimed the same. This is a case where the road accident rendered Bijay Sahu’s wife a widow with the responsibility to look after the two minor children. Possibly because she could not bring on record proper evidence, the Tribunal has taken his notional income at only Rs.24,000/- p.a. i.e. Rs.2000/- per month. The evidence that he is a businessman dealing in grains has been completely overlooked. In such circumstances, the interest of justice requires at least the addition of an 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723 Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards parental consortium, which Bijay Sahu’s two children were certainly entitled to. 25. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by enhancing the compensation amount by a further Rs. 80,000/-. Even this enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. The contention of the appellant- Insurance Company regarding interest is, accordingly, rejected. 26. Mr Alok Lal submitted that the compensation amount determined by the impugned judgment and award, along with interest @ 6% p.a., is already deposited before the Tribunal. He submitted that, in addition, the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited Rs. 25,000/- as a precondition for instituting this appeal. Accordingly, he prayed for an appropriate adjustment. Now that the compensation amount is enhanced, this amount will be subsumed therein. 27. This Court grants liberty to the claimants, i.e. respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in the Tribunal and this Court. 28. Mr. Arun Kumar is requested to furnish the bank details of the 1st Respondent, i.e. the widow, along with proof of identity, both in this Court as well as in the Tribunal. 29. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, upon being satisfied, are directed to transfer the deposited amounts to Arti Devi’s bank account directly. 30. Under no circumstances should any cash withdrawals be permitted. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:1040 31. This entire exercise must be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from today. 32. The Registry of this Court must immediately send a copy of this order to the Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal at Gumla after referencing M.A.C.C. No.50 of 2019. 33. The Registry must note that this is a compensation case in respect of an accident which took place in the year 2008 and, therefore, must not delay the matter for any reason. 34. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal at Gumla within six weeks from today. 35. Upon deposit, the Tribunal must transfer even this amount to Arti Devi’s account immediately. 36. The appellant-Insurance Company must file a compliance report in this Court after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the claimants, latest by the 26th of March 2026. 37. If no such compliance report is filed, the Registry is directed to place the matter for directions. 38. The appeal and the interim applications are disposed of in the above terms. 39. No order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) January 15, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 20.01.2026