2026:JHHC:5942 -1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 284 of 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Having its Branch Office at 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, P.O. & P.S. Head Post Office, Fort Bombay - 400001, and its Branch Office at Rajdhani Building, Dharamshala Road, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, Daltonganj. … Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Singh, son of late Ram Lakhan Singh 2. Smt. Asha Devi, wife of Surendra Singh both are residents of village Baniya Bandh, P.O. Hanterganj P.S. Hanterganj, District Chatra, 3. Daya Shankar, son of Sri Faujdar, resident of Nai Mandi, Bharatpur, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajsthan). 4. Yogendra Kumar, son of Basudeo Sharma, resident of Kampur, Gate, Bharatpur, P.O. & P.S. Sadar District - Bharatpur, at present Ram Bag, Chauraha, Admatola, Distt. Agra (U.P.). … Respondents With C.O. No. 35 of 2021 1. Surendra Singh present age about 64 years son of late Ram Lakhan Singh 2. Smt. Asha Devi present age about 54 years wife of Surendra Singh R/o Village -Baniya Bandh Po & P.S.- Hunterganj, Distt.- Chatra. ….. Cross Objectors Vs. 1. New India Assurance company .L.T.D Having its Branch office at 87 Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Fort Bombay – 400001 and its Rajdhani Building Dharmshala Road Daltonganj PO+PS+District Daltonganj. 2. Daya Shankar S/O Sri Faujdar, R/O Nai Mandi Bharatpur PO- Bharatpur, Ps- Sadar, District Bharatpur, State - Rajasthan 3. Yogendra Kumar s/o Basudeo Sharma, R/o - Kampur Gate PO- Bharatpur, Ps-Sadar, District -Bharatpur state Rajasthan, At present Address - Rambag chauraha Adamtola Po & Ps Agra, District- Agra, state – Uttarpradesh … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mrs. K.M. Poonam Varma, Advocate [Misc. Appeal No. 284 of 2015] 2026:JHHC:5942 -2 of 6- For the C.O. : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mrs. K.M. Poonam Varma, Advocate For the Insurance Company: Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate [C.O. No. 35 of 2021] --------- 20/Dated: 27.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal and Cross objections are directed against judgment and Award dated 18.04.2015 in Motor Vehicles Claim Case No. 67 of 2006. 3. Mr. G. C. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that in this case the insurance policy was never issued by the appellant-Insurance Company either from its Agra branch or the Daltonganj Branch. Evidence to this effect was provided by the Branch Manager. Therefore, there was no question of fastening any liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. Mr Jha pointed out that even the Court wrote to the Agra Branch, and the response was that the cover note was not issued by the Agra Branch. The Manager of the Insurance Company deposed about writing to the Agra Branch and receiving a response that the cover note in question was not issued by the Agra Branch. He submitted that this crucial evidence has been overlooked and therefore, the impugned Award, to the extent it renders the appellant- Insurance Company liable, must be interfered with. 5. Mr Vijay Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the claimants, submits that in the pleadings, there was no categorical denial regarding the Insurance/cover note. He submitted that a mere letter from the Agra Branch cannot constitute evidence. No witness from 2026:JHHC:5942 -3 of 6- the Agra Branch was ever examined. The plea was that the old records are not traceable. Accordingly, he submitted that no case was made out to allow the Insurance Company’s appeal. 6. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma submitted that in this case considering the law laid down in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 and Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 the income of the deceased who was nine years old should have been taken at Rs.30,000/- and not Rs.15,000/- as prescribed in the Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submitted that the compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate is meagre and not consistent with the legal position. He submitted that no proper compensation has been paid towards loss of parental consortium. 7. Accordingly, Mr Vijay Kumar Sharma submitted that the Insurance Company’s Appeal be dismissed and the claimant’s Cross Objection should be allowed. 8. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 9. In this case, the Insurance Company filed its written statement in response to the claimants’ statement of claim. Therein, no categorical denial is found about the cover note or the Insurance policy. The denials are quite vague and suggest that the records were not traceable, and therefore, the Insurance Company was unable to confirm or deny the veracity of the insurance cover. 10. Even the Manager's evidence was mainly to the effect that the records were not traceable or were old, and there was no 2026:JHHC:5942 -4 of 6- requirement to maintain them. The evidence is quite sketchy and not categorical that the cover note was some forgery or fraudulent document. 11. After the evidence was closed, the Court wrote to the Agra office, and the response was that this cover note had not been issued by the Agra office. However, despite the opportunity, no witness from the Agra office was ever examined. The Manager of the Daltonganj office simply deposed that he had also written to the Agra office and received a reply to the effect that the cover note had not been issued by the Agra office. 12. The mere fact that the letter was marked as an exhibit in evidence does not amount to admitting or proving the contents of such a letter. The contents had to be proved by a responsible officer at the Agra office. If any witness from the Agra office had to be examined, the claimants or even the owner of the insured vehicle would have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness and test the veracity of their statement. 13. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Ecstasy Realty Limited, 2026 INSC 186, held that merely because a document is not traceable in the records several years after its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged or that it is a false document. 14. Considering all the above circumstances, the Insurance Company’s plea of complete exoneration cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the Insurance Company’s Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 2026:JHHC:5942 -5 of 6- 16. So far as Cross Objections are concerned, the Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased, who was nine years old at the time of his demise in the road accident on 06.06.1996, as Rs. 15,000/-. This is because the claim was under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. Although the Schedule refers to the annual income of Rs. 15,000/-, considering the law laid down in Kishan Gopal (supra) and Kurvan Ansari (supra), it would be reasonable to consider the deceased's annual income at Rs. 25,000/-. 18. By applying the formula under Section 163-A, the deduction of 1/3rd would be in order. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each would have to be paid. Towards the parental consortium, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- will have to be paid. 19. Mr Jha submitted that, since the deceased was a 9-year-old bachelor, the entire compensation should be paid to the mother rather than the father. Compensation to the consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses to the extent of 50 per cent will have to be awarded to the father. 20. Based on the above, the total compensation would amount to Rs. 3,43,124/-, and not Rs. 1,44,500/-as awarded by the Tribunal. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest on the said amount is apportioned in favour of the father, Surendra Singh. The remaining amount, along with interest accrued thereon, is apportioned in favour of the mother, Smt. Asha Devi. The order for 2026:JHHC:5942 -6 of 6- payment of interest remains in effect. The Cross Objection is allowed to the above extent. 21. The Insurance Company should pay the compensation amount now awarded (including enhancement interest etc.) to the claimants within two months from today. The Insurance Company must deposit the compensation amount, including interest, in this Court within two months from today, after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the claimant must also provide the claimant's identity and bank details to the Registry so that the Registry can directly transfer this amount into the claimant's bank account. Under no circumstances should the amount be paid to the claimants other than by way of bank transfer. 22. The Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 23. All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of the order. 24. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 27.02.2026 APK/VK Uploaded on 01.03.2026