2026:JHHC:5256 -1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 572 of 2019 Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Dumka Branch P.O., P.S. & District-Dumka through Deputy Manager, T.P. HUB Having its office at Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali P.O. & District Ranchi ... ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Deep Mala Devi daughter of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi Prasad Lala 2. Munni Devi wife of Late of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi Prasad Lala Both Residing at Village & P.O. Madhupur, (Gwalpara) P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur, At present residing at Village & P.O. Dangalpara, P.S. Dumka (Town) District-Dumka. 3. Sumit Kumar Lala adopted son of Late Kashi Prasad Lal @ Kashi Prasad Lala (Intervener) residing at Village & P.O. Madhupur, (Gwalpara) P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur. (Claimant Nos 1 to 3 respectively) 4. Meena Devi wife of Ram Kishun Sah @ Ram Krishna Saha resident of Village & P.O. Ganeshpur, (Mohulpahari) P.S. Sikaripara District- Dumka (Owner of Bus) ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For Resp.1 & 3: Miss. Tannu Shree, Advocate For Resp. No. 2: Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For Resp. No. 4: Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate. --------- 07 /Dated: 20.02.2026 I.A. No. 10813 of 2019 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 110 days in instituting this Miscellaneous Appeal. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and we are satisfied that this delay has been sufficiently explained. 2026:JHHC:5256 -2 of 5- 3. Accordingly, we condone the delay and disposed of this I.A. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 572 of 2019 4. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant hands in D.D. of Rs. 27,01,035/- drawn in favour of Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi vide D.D. No. 489288 of Axis Bank Ltd., which was to be a precondition for any grant of any interim relief. This demand draft is accepted by the Court Master, who shall now hand it over to the Registry. 6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that in respect of the accident of 14.07.2011, the son of the deceased filed an F.I.R. in which he alleged that his adoptive father was sitting on the roof of the offending bus and on account of sudden braking, was thrown of the roof and suffered fatal injuries. However, during the evidence, this specific stance was altered and this widow, the adopted son and some other witnesses deposed to the deceased sitting inside the bus and being thrown out of the bus due to the sudden braking. These witnesses alleged that the deceased was thrown out of the driver side door and this stance amounts to a complete U-turn, which ought not to be believed. 7. Mr. Alok Lal referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Giriraj Prasad Agrawal and others, Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 against the Full Bench decision of this Court in Giriraj Prasad Agrawal Vs. Parwati Devi and others, (2005) SCC OnLine Jhar 199. 2026:JHHC:5256 -3 of 5- 8. Mr. Alok Lal submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 29.01.2025 disposing of Misc. Appeal No. 307 of 2008 and connected matters. 9. Based upon the above decisions, Mr. Alok Lal submitted that this is a fit case where no liability should be saddled on the appellant-Insurance Company or in any event, a pay and recover order must be made entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the insured vehicle. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Insurance Company chose to lead no evidence before the Tribunal. He submitted that almost 3 to 4 witnesses have deposed that the deceased was sitting inside the bus and was thrown out of the bus due to the sudden braking. They have deposed that F.I.R. is not evidence and nothing was elucidated during cross examination of the first informant. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned award may not be interfered with. 11. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 12. In this case, the widow of the victim Munni Devi has examined herself. Though, she deposed to the driver door of the bus opening suddenly and her husband being thrown out from the bus, admittedly, she was not a witness to the accident. 13. Azfarul Sheikh (CW-2) and Musleuddin Sheikh (CW-3) are eye witnesses to the accident. They have clearly deposed to the gate of the bus suddenly opening on account of the negligent driving of its driver, and the deceased, who was sitting inside the bus as a passenger, being 2026:JHHC:5256 -4 of 5- thrown out, sustaining injuries and subsequently expired at Burdwan hospital. They were cross-examined, but nothing was elicited from them to the effect that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and not inside the bus. 14. Sumit Kumar Lala (IW-1), who intervened in the matter, claimed to be the deceased's adopted son. He is the one who filed the F.I.R. As regards the accident, he deposed that when the bus reached near the D.C., due to a heavy jerk, his father was thrown out of the bus and sustained severe injuries, due to which he died. Admittedly, he was not an eyewitness and therefore, not much should be read into his F.I.R. The F.I.R, in any event, is not strictly speaking evidence, and during the cross- examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from him regarding his ambiguous statement in the F.I.R. 15. The decisions relied upon by Mr Alok Lal no doubt suggest that, where passengers are travelling on the roof of a bus, a pay and recover order can be made. However, here, there is no clear or categorical evidence about the deceased travelling on the roof of the bus; at least two eyewitnesses have deposed that the deceased was travelling inside the bus and was thrown out due to the negligent driving of the bus driver. That the testimony has not been demolished during the cross- examination. Therefore, the decisions relied upon would not apply in the absence of the foundational facts being established. 16. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company will now have to be paid to the claimants, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Miss Tanu Shree, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, state that they will 2026:JHHC:5256 -5 of 5- provide the Registry with identity documents and bank details within two weeks. The Registry should transfer the compensation amount as per the apportionment in the impugned award to the respective claimants within a maximum of three weeks of such details being supplied. If any accrued interest is due, it should also be paid to the claimants proportionately. 17. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company should be refunded to the Insurance Company since the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that this amount has not been adjusted when the demand draft for the compensation amount awarded in the impugned award was drawn. 18. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) February 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 24.02.2026