Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Zeenat Yasmin

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2025C.M.P./395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer's CMP against MACT Lohardaga order rejecting summons to RTO for permit/fitness records in MACC No.32 of 2022; fundamental ('fundament') breach defence under Section 149(2) M.V. Act; onus on owner to produce permit - Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558; adverse inference; presumption under Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act; Order XVI, Rules 6 & 7A read with Section 151 CPC; contributory negligence issue; ex-parte hearing; decided 04.12.2025; neutral citation 2025:JHHC:36456.

What did the court decide?

None; the CMP was disposed of, the Court holding the Tribunal's rejection of the petition to summon RTO records as rightly made. ¶¶24

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the CMP was disposed of, the Court holding the Tribunal's rejection of the petition to summon RTO records as rightly made.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal rightly rejected the insurance company's petition under Order XVI, Rules 6 & 7A read with Section 151 CPC to summon the R.T.O., Lohardaga register/details regarding permit and fitness of the vehicle. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

It would be impractical to summon the RTO register in all cases where an issue regarding absence of permit is raised before the Tribunal.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

As settled by the Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., the onus lies on the owner of the vehicle to bring on record the permit, and on failure adverse inference can be drawn.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

Where evidence is within the knowledge and control of a party and is not produced, a presumption of fact can be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.ratio¶¶22
The petition to call for the details/register form was rightly dismissed; if the owner fails to bring the permit on record, he does so at his own peril.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) disposed of C.M.P. No.395 of 2025 filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 23.01.2025 of the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in MACC No.32 of 2022, rejecting the insurer's petition under Order XVI, Rules 6 & 7A read with Section 151 CPC to summon the R.T.O., Lohardaga for details/register form on permit and fitness. Holding it impractical to summon the register in every case where absence of permit is raised, and relying on Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Court held that the onus lies on the owner of the vehicle to bring the permit on record, failing which adverse inference can be drawn; such presumption may alternatively be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The petition was held rightly dismissed, the owner producing the permit at his own peril. The matter was heard ex-parte as the opposite parties did not appear despite notice.

¶1

2025:JHHC:36456

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.395 of 2025

¶3

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pranami Heights, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, PO and PS Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001, represented through its authorized signatory namely Rimpi Banerjee, D/o U. K. Banerjee, Posted as Legal Executive, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pranami Heights, Circular Road, Near Lalpur Chowk, PO and PS Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001

¶4

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Zeenat Yasmin, W/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar

¶7

Shayka Perween, D/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar

¶8

Md. Atif Quaisar, S/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar

¶9

Md. Saquib Quaisar, S/o Late Md. Faruque Quaisar

¶10

Sairun Bibi, W/o Late Afid Ansari Resp. Nos.2 & 3 are minors and represented through their mother and natural guardian being Resp. No.1 herein. All R/o Village – Nari Nawadih, PO- Nari Nawadih, PS- Kisko, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand 835302.

¶11

Abdul Rajjak, S/o Sultan Ansari, R/o Village- Kasiyadih, PO- Nari Nawadih, PS- Kisko, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand 835302.

¶12

.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Pratyush Kumar, Advocate Taru Gupta, V. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the O. P.(s) :

¶15

08/ 04.12.2025 . Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance company.

¶16

The instant CMP has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga, in MACC No.32 of 2022 by which the petition filed under Order XVI, Rules 6 & 7A read with Section 151 CPC to call for the details/ register form from the Office of the RTO, Lohardaga with respect to permit and fitness by issuing summon to the R.T.O., Lohardaga has been rejected.

¶17

Learned Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that issue of contributory negligence has been framed and the document concerned was not germane to the decision on this issue.

¶18

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner- Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is entitled to raise its defence of fundament breach in terms of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act that the vehicle, in question was being plied without a valid permit. In order to demonstrate that the said vehicle

¶19

2025:JHHC:36456

¶20

was being run without any valid permit, the requisite document was necessary for which, the said petition was filed.

¶21

Earlier notices were issued upon the Opp. Parties who had not appeared and consequently, the petition is being heard ex-parte.

¶22

Having considered the submissions advanced and perusing the materials on record, this Court is of the view that it will be impractical to summon the register in all cases where such issues regarding absence of permit is raised before the Tribunal. Law is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2018) 7 SCC 558] that onus lies on the owner of the vehicle to bring on record the permit of the vehicle and on its failure to do so, adverse inference can be drawn. Otherwise also, if such evidence is within the knowledge and control of a party and is not produced, the presumption of fact can be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶23

In this view of the matter, the said petition to call for the details/ register form has been rightly dismissed. If the owner fails to bring on record the permit, he can do so on its own peril.

¶24

The instant CMP stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶26

Sandeep/-

¶27

Uploaded 5.12.2025.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Zeenat Yasmin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Zeenat Yasmin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukmani Devi Vs Ranthi Khariyain

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Sampa Mandal

National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Vs Smt Aloka Nanda Sarkar

Dharmadeo Ray Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Sunil Kumar Vs Manoj Kumar

Bandhu Oraon Vs Muni Devi