Allowed¶32

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anju Devi

Jharkhand HC13 Nov 2025MA/15/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anju Devi & Ors., Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2019, High Court of Jharkhand (Ranchi), decided 13.11.2025 by Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Keywords: Section 173(1) Motor Vehicle Act 1988; Motor Accident Claim Case No.147/2014; tractor JH 01AS 4631; death of Ram Kumar Mahto; breach of insurance policy; permit for commercial vehicle; valid driving licence not proved by owner; pay-and-recover / right of recovery; Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018) 3 SCC 208; ex-parte hearing against vehicle owner; statutory amount refund.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; Insurance Company granted right of recovery against the owner after final satisfaction of the awarded amount with interest; statutory amount to be refunded to the Insurance Company; pending Interlocutory Application, if any, disposed of.

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anju Devi — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether failure of the owner to produce a permit for the offending tractor (alleged use as a commercial vehicle for carrying goods) constituted a breach of the insurance policy. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The permit plea is rejected: from the FIR there is no evidence that the tractor was being used as a commercial vehicle for carrying and transporting goods, so the plea that the vehicle was plied as a commercial vehicle requiring a permit cannot be accepted.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Once the owner had appeared before the trial court, it was incumbent on him to bring on record the driver's driving licence; the licence registration number was also not mentioned in the claim application, so there is a clear-cut breach of the terms of the insurance policy in permitting the vehicle to be driven by a person without a valid driving licence.

¶30

Key takeaways

Despite the breach, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to a right of recovery after final satisfaction of the awarded amount with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurance appeal under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award in Motor Accident Claim Case No.147/2014 fixing liability on it for the death of Ram Kumar Mahto in an accident involving insured tractor no.JH 01AS 4631. Held: (i) the permit plea fails - the FIR and record contain no evidence that the tractor was used as a commercial vehicle for carrying goods; (ii) the owner, having appeared at trial, did not bring on record the driver's driving licence, and the licence registration number was absent from the claim application, constituting a clear-cut breach of the policy terms (principle of Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba, (2018) 3 SCC 208, found meritorious); (iii) notwithstanding the breach, the insurer is entitled to a right of recovery from the owner after final satisfaction of the awarded amount with interest. Appeal allowed; statutory deposit refundable; pending IAs disposed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:33974

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2019

¶3

------

¶4

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 7^th Floor, Mira Towers, DN 27, Sector V, West Side, Salt Lake City, P.O. & P.S. Salt Lake City, Kolkata

¶5

.... .... …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anju Devi, wife of Late Ram Kumar Mahto

¶8

Niraj Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto

¶9

Bhaskar Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto

¶10

Prince Kumar Mahto, son of Late Ram Kumar Mahto

¶11

Aghni Devi, wife of Late Balju Mahto

¶12

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being minors are being represented through their mother being natural guardian and next friend, all residing at Baredih, P.O. and P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi

¶13

Vinod Mahto, son of Late Pyari Mahto, resident of Village, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaraibag

¶14

.... .... .... Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Res./Claimants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate ------

¶17

Order No.09 / Dated : 13.11.2025

¶18

Insurance Company is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case No.147/2014 whereby and whereunder liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.

¶19

It has not been disputed that the offending vehicle bearing registration no.JH 01AS 4631 was involved in the motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of Ram Kumar Mahto. It has also not been disputed that the said vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellantInsurance Company.

¶20

The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that there was a fundamental breach of insurance policy as the said offending tractor was not having a valid permit nor the driving license was adduced into evidence by the owner, who had appeared before the learned trial Court. It is argued

¶21

¶22

2025:JHHC:33974

¶23

that law is settled by the Apex Court in Pappu & Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 , that onus was on the owner of the vehicle to have led evidence to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and he had valid driving license at the time of the accident. This onus has not been discharged by the owner of the vehicle. There was specific pleading with respect to it in para 9, 12 and 15 of the written statement.

¶24

Despite there being breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, no right of recovery has been given to the appellantInsurance Company.

¶25

With regard to permit, it is submitted that from the letter no.768, dated 21.08.2015 obtained from Transport Department, South Chotanagpur under RTI Act, it shall be evident that if the tractor was a commercial vehicle for carrying goods, the permit was required.

¶26

Notices were earlier issued and had been validly served on the owner of vehicle, but no one appeared, consequently, the appeal is being heard ex-parte against the owner of the vehicle. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company, it is apparent that the grounds of appeal are in two folds i.e. failure to produce permit and driving license by the owner of the vehicle. 8. So far permit part is concerned, from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that accident took place from the tractor and there is no evidence on record to suggest that the said tractor was being used as a commercial vehicle for carrying and transporting goods. In this view of matter, the plea that the said vehicle was being plied as commercial vehicle requiring the permit, cannot be accepted.

¶27

So far driving license is concerned, there is merit in the submission that once the owner had appeared, it was incumbent on his part to bring on record the driving license of the driver. The registration number of the driving license has also not been mentioned in the claim application so as to enable the Insurance Company to verify the same. In this view of matter,

¶28

¶29

2025:JHHC:33974

¶30

there is a clear-cut breach of terms of insurance policy for permitting the vehicle to be driven by a person without valid driving license.

¶31

Under the circumstance, appellant- Insurance Company will be entitled to right to recovery after final satisfaction of the awarded amount with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶32

Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Statutory amount be refunded to the Insurance Company. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

¶33

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶34

Anit

¶35

Uploaded 14.11.2025

¶36

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anju Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anju Devi

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

Charu Chandra Varshney Vs Pawan Kumar Sharma

Sirajul Ansari Vs Anup Kumar Srivastava

Smt Mani Raj Singh Vs Smt Manorama Singh

Lakshmi Kumari Mahato Alias Laxmi Kumari Mahto Vs Nityanand Mahto

Jitu Ram Vs Jogesh Yadav

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs Satyendra Singh