Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs National Insurance Co. Represented through Divisional Manager

2025:JHHC:27811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 372 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar Jain, Son of-Late S. C. Jain, Resident of-C/O-Nirmal Transport, Opposite Mohan Talkies, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ..... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

National Insurance Co. represented through Divisional Manager, Sheela Sadan, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S.-Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶6

Sarita Devi, W/o Late Uma Kant Mahto

¶7

Rohit Kumar, S/o Uma Kant Mahto

¶8

Priti Kumari, D/o Uma Kant Mahto

¶9

Abhishek Kumar, S/o Uma Kant Mahto

¶10

Respondent no.-3 to 5 are minor being represented through legal guardian Sarita Devi.

¶11

Arjun Mahto, S/o Late Mohan Mahto

¶12

7 . Purni Devi, W/o Arjun Mahto

¶13

All are residents of-Karhariya, P.O. and P.S-Balidih, Dist-Bokaro.

¶14

… …. Opposite Parties

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Vivek Kumar Sharma, Advocate

¶17

------

¶18

Order No. 07 / Dated : 11.09.2025.

¶19

The petitioner is the owner of the offending truck bearing Registration No. JH09 AV/0745 and is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 96 of 2022, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10(4) of CPC by which a petition filed to implead one Bipin Jaiswal in the case has been rejected.

¶20

As per the case of the claimant, one Uma Kant Mahto died in a motor vehicle accident while he was going by his motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH01 AG/4685 which met with an accident with the offending truck No. JH09 AV/0745. After the accident, Gola P.S. Case No. 20/2022 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC against the driver of truck No. JH09 AV/0745.

¶21

A claim case has been filed impleading the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle.

¶22

A petition was filed by the petitioner for impleadment of a third party on the ground that he (petitioner) was neither the owner nor the custodian of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, which was sold to a scrap vender

¶23

2025:JHHC:27811

¶24

namely, Bipin Jaiswal at 4:00 pm and the accident took place at 9:00 pm on 28.02.2022. In support of the contention, a document of transfer of the said vehicle between the petitioner and the proposed intervener applicant has been filed, which has been rejected and against which the instant civil misc. petition has been preferred.

¶25

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the provision under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is concerned, it requires liberal interpretation for determination of real question in controversy between the parties and one who is having a semblance of interest needs to be impleaded. Reliance is placed in Civil Appeal No. 15549 of 2017 (Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors.) .

¶26

It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties-claimants that as per the settled law, registered owner of vehicle will be deemed to be real owner of it and, therefore, the plea that the vehicle was transferred by document without transfer in the ownership of the vehicle will not make the proposed intervener applicant to be the necessary party.

¶27

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner. The sole ground on which the petitioner seeks to implead the intervener applicant, is on the strength of a document said to have been executed between the petitioner and the intervener applicant. No corresponding transfer was made in the ownership of the vehicle by making corresponding entries in the office of D.T.O. Further, it is quite incomprehensible that on the very same date of accident, only five hours before it, the vehicle is said to be sold to a scrap vender, whereas the said vehicle was found to be plying on the road in the case which was lodged against it.

¶28

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶29

This Civil Misc. Petition stands dismissed.

¶30

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

Pawan / -

Sanjay Kumar Jain v. National Insurance Co. Represented through Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Jain v. National Insurance Co. Represented through Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seneth Munda Vs Rajesh Kachhap

Indra Narayan Singh Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhu Oraon Vs Prabhu Oraon

Saroj Devi Alias Saroj Devi Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Singhania

Angad Sharma Alias Angad Barhi Vs Anup Rajgaria