Ms National Insurance Co Ltd Through Its Divisional Manager vs Sudama Tiwary And Ors

( 2026:JHHC:27429 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 387 of 2017
M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manage, B.P.
Agarwalla Building, P.O.- Dhansar, P.S.- Bankmore, District- Dhanbad
(Insurer of Tractor bearing No. BR-21C-6748).
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sudama Tiwary, son of Late Jadulal Tiwary;
2. Pawan Tiwary, son of Sudama Tiwary;
3. Gyani Pathak, daughter of Sudama Tiwary;
4. Pankaj Tiwary, son of Sudama Tiwary;
5. Rupak Tiwary, son of Sudama Tiwary; all resident of Noniyad, P.O.-
Baracharpa, P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar, at present resident of
Village- Pandeydih, Fatka Colliery, near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-
Nirsa, District- Dhanbad. Jharkhand.
….. Claimants / Respondents

6. Arun Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Bramdeo Prasad Sinha, resident of
Gopalbad, P.O.- Gopalbad, P.S.- Sareia, District- Nalanda, at present
resident of Sindri Colony, Nirsa Near BFW, P.O. & P.S.- Nirsa, Town-
Dhanbad (owner of Tractor bearing No. BR-21C-6748).
… ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
------
For the Appellant : Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate
-----
11 /Dated: 11.04.2026
I.A. No. 1042 of 2019
1. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 38 days in filing this appeal.
2. Upon perusing the cause shown, I am satisfied that the same is
sufficient.
3. The delay is condoned and I.A. is disposed of.
M.A. No. 387 of 2017
4. Heard Mr Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
5. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2017
made in T (M.V.) Case No. 42 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Dhanbad.
6. Mr Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the insurance company,
submits that the insurance company raised a specific plea in the written
statement that the driver of the insured vehicle, i.e., Haldal Bishal, held a
1

( 2026:JHHC:27429 )
fake license. In support, documentary evidence in the form of a letter from
the District Transport Officer, Patna and the Investigator’s report were also
produced and admitted in evidence. He submitted that the Tribunal did not
consider this point or, in any event, considered it cursorily and refused to
exonerate the insurance company.
7. Mr Manish Kumar submitted that driving of the insured vehicle by
a driver who did not possess a license or a valid license amounts to a
fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and
therefore, no liability could have been foisted upon the appellant insurance
company in this matter. He pointed out that the driver was never impleaded
in the claim petition and the owner, despite substituted service before the
Tribunal and this Court, has not bothered to contest the proceedings.

8. For all the above reasons, Mr Manish Kumar submitted that the
impugned award be interfered with and the liability foisted upon the
appellant insurance company be set aside.
9. Considering the above contentions of Mr Manish Kumar, the
impugned award and the record, which was called for in this matter, were
perused.
10. The record shows that the driving license in the name of Haldal
Bishsal, the driver of the insured vehicle, was produced on record.
11. Since the appellant insurance company claimed that the driving
licence was fake, it was on the appellant Insurance Company to lead
evidence to that effect. The onus of establishing fundamental breach of the
terms of the insurance policy was on the appellant insurance company [see
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297].
Further in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat & Anr. Vs Alfred Antonio Doe
Martins And Ors , (1985) ACJ 397 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
2

( 2026:JHHC:27429 )
while reiterating that the onus of establishing fundamental breach of the
terms of the insurance policy would lie on the insurance company which
raises such a plea, has held that the insured is not under an obligation to
furnish evidence to enable the insurance company to wriggle out of its
liability.
12. In this case, the insurance company has examined no witness.
However, it has produced on record a letter from the District Transport
Officer, Patna stating that the name of the driving license holder is one
Anjani Bhushan. Similarly, a private investigator’s report dated
27.10.2010 has also been produced to the same effect.
13. Admittedly, neither the private investigating officer nor the District
Transport Officer, Patna, was examined in this matter. Therefore, based
only on these two letters produced, it is difficult to accept that the burden
has been validly discharged by the insurance company. The circumstance
that the driver was not made a party to the claim petition or that the owner
did not appear despite service cannot be sufficient to draw any adverse
inference, much less to allow this appeal.
14. If the driver was not impleaded as a respondent, nothing prevented
the appellant insurance company from seeking a summons to examine him
in the context of their allegation that the driving license produced by such
driver was fake. Similarly, as was held in Narcinva V. Kamat ( supra ) , the
owner (insured) was not under an obligation to furnish evidence to enable
the insurance company to wriggle out of its liability. For the above reasons,
no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order, and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
15. However, in this case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
only Rs. 3,60,500/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
3

( 2026:JHHC:27429 )
the date of admission of the suit, i.e. 06.12.2013, till realisation. This
compensation does not appear to be “just compensation”.

16. Even though no cross-objection may have been preferred by the
claimants, it is the duty of this Court to determine an award of “just
compensation”, as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Surekha and Others v. Santosh and Others , (2021) 16 SCC 467.
17. Accordingly, Mr Manish Kumar was heard on the issue of quantum
of compensation.
18. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased, who operated
a Kirana Shop, at Rs. 3000/- per month. However, it has not added
anything for future prospects.
19. There is some controversy on whether the age of the deceased was
50 years as stated in the postmortem report or 54 years as was claimed by
the claimants in her claim petition. In this case, the husband of the deceased
has deposed in the matter that his wife was 54 years at the time of the
accident. This evidence should have been preferred over the age mentioned
in the postmortem report. Accordingly, the age of the deceased should be
taken at 54 and not 50 as held by the Tribunal.
20. Considering the age of the deceased at 54, a 10% addition would be
due towards future prospects, which means her income would be Rs.
3300/- per month, corresponding to Rs. 39600 /- per annum.
21. Out of the above amount, a 25% deduction is due towards personal
expenses. This means the yearly income for determining dependency will
be taken at Rs. 29700/-. The multiplier, according to the decision in Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, would be 11 and not 13, as held by the
Tribunal. The compensation towards dependency therefore comes to Rs.
4

( 2026:JHHC:27429 )
3,26,700/-. Besides, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.
40,000/- each towards loss of consortium i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- in all. The
claimants would also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses
and another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.
22. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 5,56,700/-.
23. Thus, the insurance company's appeal is dismissed, but the
compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,60,500/- to Rs. 5,56,700/-. This
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till its actual realisation and not just from the date of
admission of the suit.
24. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount
together with interest as now determined in this Court within six weeks
from today.
25. If any amounts have already been paid or deposited, the same can
be adjusted while depositing the above-referred amount, after giving
advance notice to the Member Secretary, JHALSA. Since the claimants
have not appeared in the matter, JHALSA must take steps to contact the
claimants and ensure they receive the deposited amount through regular
banking channels at the earliest.
26. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for
costs.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

September 11, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
NAFR
Uploaded on 15.09.2026



5