Md. Islam Ansari @ Islam Miyan and Anr. Vs Binod Kumar and Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.778 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

The Chief Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. B.S.F.C. Building Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Patna. Insurar of the offending Truct No. BR-1G-8935. represented through Shri Prabhakar Pradhan, Deputy Manager, and duly constituted attorney of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. having its regional office at 6th and 7th Floor, B.S.F.C. Building, Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Patna.

¶4

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mehra Bhawan, Pali Road, Dehari - on- Sone, District Rohtas. Insurar of the offending Truct No. BR-1G-8935. represented through Shri Prabhakar Pradhan, Deputy Manager, and duly constituted attorney of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. having its regional office at 6th and 7th Floor, B.S.F.C. Building, Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Patna.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

Islam Ansari @ Islam Miyan and Ors. S/O Abdul Latif Miyan R/O VillGopalpur Chakanai, P.S.-Bidupur, Distt- Vaishali

¶8

Nasima Khatoon@Nasisa Khatoon W/O Islam Miyan R/O Vill-Gopalpur Chakanai, P.S.-Bidupur, Distt- Vaishali

¶9

Ramjee Gupta S/O Hans Lal R/O Village and P.O.-Badrabad, P.S.-Bdrabad, Distt- Arbal. Owner of offending vehicle Truct No. BR- 1G/8935.

¶10

Binod Kumar S/O Ratam Kumar R/O Village and P.O.-Badrabad, P.S.Badrabad, Distt- Arwal. Driver of the offending Truck No. BR - 1G/8935.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

with

¶14

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 527 of 2013

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Md. Islam Ansari @ Islam Miyan and Anr. Son Of Abdul Latif Miyan, 2. Nasisa Khatoon @ Nasisa Khatun Wife Of Md. Islam Ansari Both Resident Of Gopalpur Chakamal, Police Station Bidupur District Vaishali

¶17

... ... Appellant/s

¶18

Versus

¶19

Binod Kumar and Ors. Son Of Ratan Kumar Resident Of Village, Post Office And Police Station Badrabad, District- Arbal

¶20

Ramjee Gupta Son Of Sri Hanslal Resident Of Village, Post Office And Police Station Badrabad, District- Arbal

¶21

The Chief Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. B.S.F.C. Building 6th And 7th Floor, Frazer Road, Patna 800001

¶22

Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mehera Bhawan Pali Road, Dehri-On-Son District- Rohtas

¶23

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 2/12

¶24

... ... Respondent/s

¶25

==================== Appearance : (In Miscellaneous Appeal No.	================================== 778 of 2012)
For the Appellant/s :	Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :	Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shyam Kishor Singh, Advocate
(In Miscellaneous Appeal No.	527 of 2013)
For the Appellant/s :	Mr. Shyam Kishor Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : ====================	Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate Mr. Mukteshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate ==================================

¶26

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Date : 23-07-2026

¶28

Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶29

New India Assurance Company Ltd (appellant in MA No. 778 of 2012 ), Mr. Raj Kumar for the vehicle owner, Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh for the claimant as also Mr. Mukteshwar Prasad Singh who is representing New India Assurance Company Ltd., respondent nos. 3 to 4 in MA No. 527 of 2013 .

¶30

2 . M.A. No. 778 of 2012 has been preferred for the following relief:

¶31

“Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 27.09.2012 and award dated 18.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge Xth cum Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 229 of 2011,”

¶32

3 . Similarly, M.A. No. 527 of 2013 has been preferred for the following relief:

¶33

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026

¶34

3/12

¶35

“against the Judgment and award dated 27.09.2012 and 18.12.2012 respectively passed in Claim Case No. 229 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, X-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna whereby and where under the applicants are aggrieved and have preferred the present memo of appeal to enhance the compensation.”

¶36

4 . Both the Miscellaneous Appeals arises out of the common order and judgment dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, X-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 229 of 2011 (Md. Islam Ansari & Anr. vs. Binod Kumar and Ors.) .

¶37

5 . The facts of the case leading to the present case is/are as follows:

¶38

6 . Md. Mustaq Ansari @ Guddu (deceased) was driving a motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-01-A-2748 and on 30.05.2011 , as he was coming from Hajipur to Patna, near the BISCOMAUN roundabout, he was hit by a truck bearing Registration No. BR-1G-8935, was immediately shifted to the Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna where he breathe his last. This led to Alamganj P.S. Case No. 145 of

¶39

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 4/12

¶40

2011 on 30.05.2011 under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian

¶41

Penal Code against the truck driver.

¶42

7 . The matter thereafter moved before Motor Accident

¶43

Claim Tribunal, Patna (henceforth for short, ‘the Tribunal’) where the issues framed were as under:

¶44

“(i) whether the case, as framed, is maintainable;

¶45

(ii) whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing Registration No. BR-1G-8935 ;

¶46

(iii) whether the insurer has violated the terms and conditions of the policy;

¶47

(iv) whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount, and if so, what amount and from whom;

¶48

(v) whether the claimants are entitled to relief or reliefs, if any.”

¶49

8 . In support of their claim, the appellants put forward four witness which included:

¶50

(i) Islam Ansari @ Islam Mian (the claimant);

¶51

(ii) the lady, Nasima Khatoon (mother);

¶52

(iii) Md. Islam (cousin brother); and

¶53

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026

¶54

5/12

¶55

(iv) Kayyum Ansari.

¶56

9 . They have stated about the accident that took place near the BISCOMAUN roundabout. They have further stated that, at the time of death, he was twenty-three years old and beside studying, he was also doing tuition and taking care of his father’s store, thus was having an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

¶57

10 . The third witness and the cousin brother, Md. Islam who claimed that he was following the deceased on an auto and he has seen the entire occurrence. He has also supported the claimant’s claim that the deceased was doing tuition work beside helping his father in the store and thus earning Rs. 5,000/- .

¶58

11 . The fourth witness is Kayyum Ansari and according to him, the deceased was studying Bachelor of Arts and also doing tuition work beside taking care of his father’s store.

¶59

12 . The exhibits that have been put forward includes:

¶60

“(i) Exhibit-1 (the FIR lodged against the truck owner);

¶61

(ii) Exhibit-2 (the charge-sheet submitted against the truck owner, Binod Kumar);

¶62

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 6/12

¶63

(iii) Exhibit-3 (the postmortem report);

¶64

(iv) Exhibit-4 (the insurance document of the

¶65

truck);

¶66

(v) Exhibit-5 (the correction in the registration

¶67

number in the truck).”

¶68

13 . It is to be noted that the truck was insured with the

¶69

New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for brevity, ‘the Company’) for the period of 13.04.2011 to 12.04.2012 and the accident took place on 30.05.2011. Thus the truck was having the valid insurance at the time of occurrence.

¶70

14 . ‘The Company’ submitted its written argument

¶71

stating that:

¶72

“(i) the claim framed is not legally maintainable;

¶73

(ii) it is fit to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties;

¶74

(iii) the certificate of fitness and tax token have not been filed;

¶75

(iv) the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license on the date of accident nor had any valid permit for the route where the accident took place.”

¶76

(emphasis added)

¶77

15 . The order sheet of the learned ‘The Tribunal’

¶78

shows that on 14.05.2012, on the prayer made by the Insurance

¶79

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 7/12

¶80

Company, the vehicle owner was directed to provide the driving license of the driver for its verification. The specific contention of ‘the Company’ is/was that the truck was plying without any valid driving license. The record shows that the vehicle owner despite opportunity being granted, failed to submit the driving license for its verification/genuineness.

¶81

16 . The case was finally taken up on 27.09.2012 and ‘The Tribunal’ recorded that so far as issue no. (i) is concerned, the claim is maintainable. Regarding the other issues, the Court took note of the fact that though the claimant claimed that the son was helping in the store and was also doing tuition job, no such document was ever made available to consider that he was earning Rs. 5,000/-.

¶82

17 . As such, taking into account all the facts on account, it came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,16,500/- alongwith the statutory interest of 8% . As Rs. 50,000/- draft was already handed over to the claimants earlier, it was recorded that they will be getting Rs. 2,61,500/- alongwith the statutory interest.

¶83

18 . Aggrieved, while ‘the Company’ challenged the order in MA No. 778 of 2012 , the claimants also moved in MA No. 527 of 2013 for the enhancement.

¶84

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026

¶85

8/12

¶86

19 . After some arguments, Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for ‘the Company’ candidly submits that he would restricts himself to the prayer for allowing them to realize the amount that is to be handed over to the claimant from the vehicle owner as despite the Court’s order, as recorded above, they failed to come up with the driving license for its verification and as such, it will be deemed that the truck was plying on the road without valid document and thus liable for the payment.

¶87

20 . So far as the claimants are concerned, they claim that though they failed to submit documents to support their contention of deceased doing tuition job as also supporting the family by giving helping hand to his father in the store, even the oral evidences are admissible as per the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in the case of Syed Sadiq and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 and Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 13 SCC 236 which records that even oral evidence is/are admissible while deciding the MACT cases.

¶88

21 . Mr. Raj Kumar represent the vehicle owner and though the submission is that the Truck was moving with a valid

¶89

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 9/12

¶90

Insurance Company, on query about the non-production of the driving licence of the driver for its verification, the contention is that the driver was having a valid driving license.

¶91

22 . Shri Mukteshwar Prasad is representing ‘the Company’ in MA No. 527 of 2013 and according to him, the Court rightly took the Rs. 3,000/- per month income of the deceased as the claimants failed to come up with any document to support their case. The claim was made that the deceased passed Inter examination was doing graduation as also taking tuition and helping the parents in the store. However, none of the contention was/were supported by any document. The submission is that the Hon’ble Apex Court’s orders (quoted above) can only come to the rescue in only such cases where the documentary evidences are not available, oral evidence can be taken. However, here is the case where the parents claim that the deceased passed the Intermediate examination and was doing graduation but no certificate of Inter nor the name of college was/were disclosed. Thus, even for accepting the oral evidence, at least the name and the place of the store and the kind of business that the parents were doing should have been narrated before ‘the Tribunal’ and/or incorporated in the petition which again is/are missing.

¶92

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026

¶93

10/12

¶94

23 . He as such, submits that though ‘the Company’ is entitled to get the amount realised from the vehicle owner as the Driver failed to provide the valid driving license, the claimants are not entitled for any relief other than what has been recorded in the order of the ‘the Tribunal’.

¶95

24 . Having gone through the facts of the case and the submissions put forward by the respective counsels, this Court is in conformity with the just and proper submission put forward by ‘the Company’ through its learned counsels namely, Mr. Shailendra Kumar as also Mr. Mukteshwar Prasad Singh.

¶96

25 . Here is a case where an unfortunate death took place when the claimant’s son while driving the motorcycle met with the accident. A case was registered against the vehicle owner. This followed the claim case before ‘the Tribunal’. However, despite putting forward four witnesses which included the parents/claimants, they failed to come out with a single chit of paper to support their contention of the deceased doing tuition job and/or helping the parents in the store.

¶97

26 . The specific case of the claimant is/are that he completed intermediate and was in his graduation. The least, in that background, was expected from the parents is/are to provide Intermediate certificate and the details of the College where he

¶98

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 11/12

¶99

was studying. If they wanted oral evidence to be accepted, even the name of the college should have been given. However, they failed to do so.

¶100

27 . Further, the identity of the store, its location as also kind of business he was doing could have been helpful to them to put forward their points that even oral evidence has to be taken into account while considering the claim.

¶101

28 . This Court is of the opinion that when the claimants failed to even do the basic homework, the Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment cannot come to their rescue. In that background, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month decided by ‘the Tribunal’ was completely justified.

¶102

29 . This takes the Court to the conclusion as follows:

¶103

(i) the MA No. 778 of 2012 filed by ‘the Company’ stands disposed of granting liberty to ‘the Company’ to realise the amount from the vehicle owner in accordance with law in view of the fact that the driving license was not produced before the Court despite the specific order was passed on 14.05.2012. ‘The Company’ is further directed to clear the entire pending amount to the parents/claimants by 31^st of July, 2026 with statutory interest, failing which, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is to be handed over to them for the delay.

¶104

Patna High Court MA No.778 of 2012 dt.23-07-2026 12/12

¶105

(ii) So far as the MA No. 527 of 2013 , filed by the claimants, is concerned, no relief can be extended to them in view of the aforesaid averment made in the present appeal. The appeal fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶106

30 . The statutory amount deposited in by ‘the Company shall be returned to it forthwith.

¶107

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶108

Adnan/-

¶109

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	24.07.2026
Transmission Date	N/A

Md. Islam Ansari @ Islam Miyan and Anr. v. Binod Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Islam Ansari @ Islam Miyan and Anr. v. Binod Kumar and Ors.

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

Jay Nandan Prasad @ Jay Nandan Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nawab Parwez Vs The State of Bihar

Gajendra Kumar @ Rajnish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mosmat Meera Devi

Techniwas Electronic Vikash Sansthan Vs The State of Bihar

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Rubi Kumari