Khalil Ansari Vs Anupama Devi And Ors.

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Main Road, Opposite Ram Mandir P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum .…… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate

¶13

For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mansih Kumar, Advocate

¶14

Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate

¶15

06/Dated: 02/07/2025

¶16

Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel, who has been

¶17

authorized to argue this matter on behalf of Mr. G.P. Roy, who is the Advocate on record and Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4/ United India Insurance Company Limited.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that I.A. No. 1534 of 2018 has been filed for condonation of delay of 354 days in filing the appeal. He submits that in preparation of filing appeal, the said delay has occurred which may kindly be condoned.

¶19

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶20

submits that there is no explanation and no cogent reason has been assigned to condone the delay of 354 days.

¶21

Taking the lenient view, the delay of 354 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶22

I.A. No. 1534 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶23

¶24

( 2025:JHHC:17472 )

¶25

The appellant has filed the present appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment/ award dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned District Judge-III -cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.145 of 2014.

¶26

Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant namely Anup Kumar Singh and his fardbeyan was recorded on 19.04.2014 at about 6.30 a.m. and it was registered as Nirsa P.S. Case No.121 of 2014, dated 19.04.2014 against the driver of the truck bearing registration No.JH-10N-9051. It was stated in the fardbeyan that Anup Kumar Singh aged about 26 years son of late Madhab Prasad, village-Jedor Manjgai, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka (Bihar) at that time was residing at Jamshedpur. On 18.04.2014 the deceased along with his relatives standing on left side of NH-2 road for starting the procession of Barat and during that time the offending truck bearing registration No.JH-10N-9051 was coming from Nirsa Bazar side which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the deceased and thereafter he has left for his heavenly abode. He submits that the learned court has wrongly passed the award holding that the driving license of the driver was fake. He submits that the truck in question was insured with insurance company and in view of that the appellant is not liable to pay whereas the direction was issued by the learned Tribunal to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the truck. In that view of the matter, the award may kindly be modified.

¶27

Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the insurance company/ United India Insurance Company Limited draws the attention of the Court to the finding of the learned court with regard to the driving license and submits that Issue No.III was framed with regard to the valid driving license. He submits that the learned court has come to the finding

¶28

¶29

( 2025:JHHC:17472 )

¶30

on the documents brought by the insurance company that two licenses on which the owner has relied were found to be fake and in view of that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the said order.

¶31

The learned Tribunal has considered that the insurance company has filed the xerox copy of the license of driver namely, Sanjay Kumar Mandal which has been marked as Exhibit-A, Original Certificate dated 01.03.2016 issued by the D.T.O., Lohardaga is marked as Exhibit-D, Original Investigation Report dated 07.03.2016 of Ashish Agarwal is ExhibitE and Original Challan dated 12.02.2016 is marked as Exhibit-F. The learned Tribunal has further considered that insurance company produced one oral witness namely Kamal Nayan who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was posted as Administrative Officer at United India Insurance Company and as such, he was knowing about the facts of accident. He has stated that Sanjay Kumar Mandal was driving the truck and it is alleged that he has kept License No.106/PE and it was issued from the D.T.O. Office, Ranchi for driving the light motor vehicles and it was alleged that this license was included HGV from the D.T.O. Office, Lohardaga for running the heavy motor vehicle and the driving License no.2341/04 has been issued. The said witness further stated that the insurance company has enquired about the license through his investigating officer Shahnaj Parvin from the D.T.O., Ranchi and D.T.O., Ranchi has sent a reply through letter on 27.02.2015 and found the license was not issued by his office and found that the license is fake. Shahnaj Parvin has also submitted his report on 21.09.2015 in this regard. She has further stated that License No.2341/04 of Sanjay Kumar Mandal issued from the D.T.O. Office, Lohardaga was also found to be fake on enquiry. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, so the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation

¶32

¶33

( 2025:JHHC:17472 )

¶34

to the claimants.

¶35

When the license was found to be fake, onus lies upon the owner of the vehicle to prove the fact that it was not fake. The owner has not been able to prove the same fact before the learned Tribunal. Thus, there is no illegality in the said finding and if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the Policy will be satisfied by the insurance company and the insurance company will recover the same from the owner of the truck in question.

¶36

The Court finds that there is no illegality or any error in the finding of the learned Tribunal.

¶37

As such, this appeal being M.A. No. 568 of 2017 is dismissed.

¶38

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Satyarthi/-

¶40

Khalil Ansari v. Anupama Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalil Ansari v. Anupama Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Prasad Gupta Vs Manoj Kumar Gupta

Saiyad Shahrup Ali @ Syed Sharuf Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Prasad Vs Brajesh Verma

Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Smt. Rajeshwari Devi

Jagarnath Thakur Vs Riyajuddin

Jagarnath Thakur Vs Riyajuddin