( 2026:JHHC:11272 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 96 of 2019 Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, B.P. Agarwalla Building, P.O-Dhanbad, P.S- Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, through Assistant Manager, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Office at Kachahri Road beside Gopal Complex, Ranchi, P.O-G.P.O, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, (Jharkhand). …. …. Appellant Versus 1. Rubi Devi wife of Late Lochan Ravidas, 2. Kundan Das son of Late Lochan Ravidas, 3. Sonali Kumari daughter of Late Lochan Ravidas, 4. Nandani Kumari daughter of Late Lochan Ravidas, (Respondent no. 2 & 4 are minor and they are represented through their natural guardian i.e Respondent No.1, mother, Rubi Devi) 5. Sudhir Rabidas son of Late Bharat Rabidas, 6. Bedna Devi, wife of Late Sudhir Rabidas, All are permanent resident of village- Latani, P.O- Latani, P.S- Tundi, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 7. Sundra Singh son of Late Kati Singh, resident of Fatehpur, P.O & P.S- Tundi, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) (Owner of Auto Ricshaw, Reg. No. JH-10AJ-9908). …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant : Mr Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.7 : Mr Rajiv Kr Shekhar. Advocate ----- 07 /Dated: 18.04.2026 I.A. No. 3119 of 2024 1. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 95 days in instituting this appeal. 2. On perusing the averments made in the I.A., I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay of 90 days is condoned and this I.A. is disposed of. M.A. No. 96 of 2019 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 7th respondent (owner of the offending vehicle). He points out that although an issue was raised about the autorickshaw driver not having a valid and effective driving licence and the autorickshaw having no valid permit at the time of the ( 2026:JHHC:11272 ) 2 accident, the Tribunal has not even addressed this issue in the impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2018. He therefore submits that this issue should have been decided in favour of the insurance company and that the Tribunal should have made a pay and recover order. 4. Considering the issue raised, firstly, there is no necessity to deprive the claimants of the compensation that has been awarded by the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the compensation amount has already been deposited by this Court’s order dated 03.08.2021 before the Tribunal. 5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as against the original claimants. The Tribunal should, therefore, pay the deposited compensation amount to the original claimants through a regular banking channel. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dhanbad, must contact the original claimants in this matter and render all assistance to ensure that the compensation amount is transferred directly into their bank account. 6. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the record shows that the Tribunal, based upon the pleadings, had framed the following issue Nos. 4 and 5: - “4. Whether the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. JH-10AJ09908 had valid and effective driving licence” 5. Whether the vehicle has got valid permit during the period of motor accident?’ 7. The so-called discussions on issue Nos. 4 and 5 are at paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment and award, which reads as follows: “10. Issue No. 4 & 5:- So far these issues are concerned the case in hand I find that it is matter of fact that deceased, namely, Lochan Ravidas on dt. 06.07.14 was returning on a tempo bearing ( 2026:JHHC:11272 ) 3 registration No. JH-10AJ-9908 and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle the accident took place and he succumbed to his 18 injuries during course of the treatment after couple of months of the alleged occurrence. The certificate of registration of the said vehicle has brought on the record by the plaintiffs/applicants of this case and the photo copy of the said certificate of registration has marked -X for identification. The date of registration is 24.09.13 and registration validity is till 23rd May, 2015 which in the name of Sundra Singh. From going through the First information Report which has been marked Ext-9 and the same is the certified copy F.I.R. and also after going through the certificate of the Final From which has been marked as Ext-10 shows that the occurrence took place in respect of the vehicle No. JH-AJ-9908 which was driving by one Binni Singh and from going through the certificate of Insurance of the said vehicle which is marked-X/1 for identification it shows that the vehicle was insured with the National insurance Co. Ltd. And the insurance was valid from 21.05.2014 to Midnight of 20.05.2015 whereas the said occurrence took place on 07.07.14 and at the time of the said occurrence the offending vehicle was insured in the name of Sundra Singh. The ocular evidence brought on the record by the plaintiffs/applicants of this case I find here that all of them have stated that the occurrence took place by the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH-10AJ-9908 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Although no any postmortem report has brought on the record and the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle has also not been brought by the ld. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/applicants of this case, but on the other hand I find that in the contrary nothing has been brought on the record by the Id. Counsel representing the respondent no.2 to show that the occurrence did not take place by the said vehicle bearing No. JH-10AJ-9908. In absence of any cogent and reliable material or averments that the entire case of the plaintiffs/applicants cannot ( 2026:JHHC:11272 ) 4 be thrown out. There is no any specific denial in respect of these issues from the side of respondent no.2 i.e. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. in so many cases it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in motor accident claim cases, the Court cannot adopt a hypertechnical approach but has to discharge the role of parens patriae. Thus, on the basis of above discussions and after going through the legal material available on the record I came to the conclusion that these two issues have also been proved by the plaintiffs/claimants of this case. Therefore, under the above mentioned discussion these two issues are also decided in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants of this case.” 8. Upon perusing the same, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no discussion worthy of the name on these issues. By simply stating that the Tribunal cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach in such matters, no decision has been given on these issues. While it is correct that no hyper-technical approach should be adopted in such matters, this cannot be an excuse for not even discussing or addressing the issues that have been raised. 9. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision only on the issue Nos. 4 and 5, and to decide whether it is a fit case to make a pay and recovery order. No other issues need to be considered on remand. 10. As noted, this appeal stands dismissed as against the original claimants and is now being remanded only to determine the above issues and decide whether the pay and recovery order needs to be made qua the 7th respondent, i.e., the owner of the insured vehicle. 11. On remand, both parties shall be entitled to lead evidence on these issues. This is in addition to the evidence already produced on record. ( 2026:JHHC:11272 ) 5 12. The Tribunal must issue notices to the appellant and the 7th respondent, and upon service of the same, proceed to dispose of the limited remand. If the Tribunal concludes that there was indeed a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy, it will consider making a pay-and-recovery order; otherwise, it may not. 13. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent, without any order for costs. 14. The Registry is to transmit the records to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment and order. The copy of this judgment and order should also be sent to the Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad. The Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, must also ensure that the compensation amount in this matter, which is stated to be deposited with the Tribunal, actually reaches the original claimants through the usual banking channels. 15. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this Court is directed to be refunded to the appellant along with interest, if any, that may have accrued on this amount. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) April 18, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR/ uploaded on 20.04.2026