M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Its Branch Manager Vs Smt. Nira Devi Alias Malti Devi

2025:JHHC:33246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 247 of 2025

M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, having its local office at Shastri Nagar, Dowatand, PO& PS Dhansar, District Dhanbad and also through its Zonal Manager (Legal Claims) Sri. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, aged about 44 years, son of Jagannath Mishtra, residing at, 4th Floor, 163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, PO & PS - Tollygunj, District - Kolkata - 700026 (West Bengal) (Insurer of offending vehicle Tata Hyva Tipper No. JH-10N-2539)

¶4

.... .... Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Nira Devi @ Malti Devi, aged about 39 years, w/o Late Bharat Napit,

¶7

Anita Kumari, aged about 21 years, daughter of Late Bharat Napit,

¶8

Mukesh Kumar, aged about 17 years,

¶9

Shankar Napit, aged about 16 years,

¶10

Both sons of Late Bharat Napit, Respondent no. 3 and 4 being minor are represented by their natural guardian and mother, Smt. Nira Devi@ Malti Devi, Respondent no. 1.

¶11

All residents of Village Jamuatand, PO Nawagarh, PS Baghmara, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶12

Paradise Transport Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Darya Singh, a company having its address at Flat No. 2, Deepraj Apartment, Shastri Nagar (East), PO & PS Bank More, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 826001. (Owner of offending vehicle Tata Hyva Tipper No. JH-10N-2539).

¶13

Ratan Turi, s/o Ltd. Mangar Turi, resident of Village & PO-Madaidih, PSTopchanchi, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶14

… …. Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

For the Appellant :Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Claimants : Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate

¶17

------

¶18

Order No. 06 / Dated : 06.11.2025.

¶19

Earlier, the notice was validly served on the owner of the vehicle (R-5) but none has appeared on his behalf. Consequently, the case is proceeding exparte against him.

¶20

Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in M.A.C.C. No. 225 of 2018, whereby and whereunder liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

¶21

The finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the accidental death of Bharat Napit on 21.11.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Hywa Dumper bearing registration no. JH10N-2539 is not under challenge.

¶22

2025:JHHC:33246

¶23

Appeal is preferred solely on the ground that the nature of the insurance policy was to cover any damage to the Hywa and did not involve third party risk coverage. A specific reference is made to Ext. 6 which is the policy of insurance adduced into evidence on behalf of the claimants.

¶24

It is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the policy of insurance covers contractor’s plant and machinery as has been noted in the policy of insurance for which premium of Rs. 1,37,701/- was paid. No premium amount was charged to cover third party risk. It is argued that it has come in the deposition of D.W.-1 who was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company and stated that policy of insurance was under plant and machinery, which did not mention third party insurance coverage.

¶25

It is argued that learned Tribunal allowed the claim by relying on M.A. No. 13 of 2018 (Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Anjuman Ara & Ors). In the said case, it is argued that there was no such issue that in a policy for plant and machinery, third party coverage is implicit and can be allowed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has defended the impugned order by relying M.A. No. 13/2018.

¶27

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the policy of insurance did not extend to cover third party risk and was confined to plant and machinery only. In this view of the matter, it does not stand to reason as to how the insurance company can be liable to pay compensation amount in the first place. In order to make insurance company liable under Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the fundamental requirement is that the vehicle should be insured and the person, who died in the accident, should be covered by the said insurance policy. Policy of insurance should be a package policy so as to saddle the Insurance Company with liability to pay for third party liability, or in the least it should cover third party. Here, it is neither the case, so naturally and logically, it is not the insurance company but the owner of the vehicle who will be liable to pay compensation.

¶28

Reliance on M.A. No. 13/2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is misplaced as from the plain reading of the order, it is manifest that the issue of the vehicle having no insurance policy to cover third party risk was not there before the Court.

¶29

2025:JHHC:33246

¶30

Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside.

¶31

10.Misc. Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

11.However, the claimant will be entitled to be paid the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 5). The owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 5) will make the payment to the claimant within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order failing which learned Tribunal will proceed against the owner of the vehicle accordingly.

¶33

12.The statutory amount, deposited at the time of preferring the Misc. Appeal, be returned to the appellant-insurance company.

¶34

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶35

Pawan / - Uploaded 10.11.2025

M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Its Branch Manager v. Smt. Nira Devi Alias Malti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Its Branch Manager v. Smt. Nira Devi Alias Malti 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

Sugriv Prasad Vs Ravi Shankar Kumar And Ors.

Bablu Barnwal Vs Niranjan Singh

Ujjwal Kumar Bit @ Ujjawal Bit Vs Subodh Kumar Das

Prahlad Sao Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

Sudeep Agrawal Vs Sanjay Kumar Agrawalla

Radha Mohan Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga