High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 04 JH CK 1289

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Jaleshwari Devi

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 April 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M. A. No. 111 Of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 419 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

1.

The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in Compensation Case No. 105/2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereby and whereunder, liability to pay the compensation amount has been fixed on the Insurance Company.

2.

As per the case of the claimant, deceased Sanjay Kumar Ojha was a permanent employee of Tata Iron and Steel Company and while going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 16L-8058 he met with an accident with the trailer bearing Registration No. NL05A 6125, resulting in his death.

3.

As per the case of the claimant, the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-present appellant.

4.

The Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and admitted in its show cause that Sunaina Mishra-O.P. No. 2 was the owner of the said trailer which was under its insurance cover at the time of accident. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailer and consequently, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation amount.

5.

This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the claim has been preferred by the mother of the deceased but the wife has not been impleaded in the claim application. It is further argued that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and was not wearing helmet at the time of accident.

6.

I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. The Insurance Company cannot raise these pleas, as there is definite finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer, therefore, it does not make any difference whether the deceased was having a driving license or he was wearing helmet at the time of accident or not. Further, no evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company to show that the deceased did not had a valid driving license at the time of accident. So far as not impleading the wife of the deceased is concerned, this plea is not available to the Insurance Company for denying the payment of the insurance amount to the claimant.

This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with cost. The statutory amount, if any, which was deposited before this

Court at the time of filing of this appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant(s), which will be adjusted against the compensation amount.