Opp. Party No.2/ vs Sushila Kumari Kisku on 31 July, 2026

Jharkhand High Court

Opp. Party No.2/ vs Sushila Kumari Kisku on 31 July, 2026

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22711




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    M. A. No. 597 of 2016
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport
Road, P.O. & P.S. Yerwada, Pune-411006 through the Manager, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 804, 8th Floor, Mahabir
Tower, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi
                                        ...   Opp. Party No.2/Appellant
                          Versus
1. Sushila Kumari Kisku, Daughter of Ruplal Kisku & Late Surajmani
   Manjhiyan
2. Jitendra Kisku, son of Ruplal Kisku & Late Surajmani Manjhiyan
3. Sikendar Kisku, son of Ruplal Kisku & Late Surajmani Manjhiyan
   All residing at Village & P.O. Birsinghpur, (Tola-Kada Kulhi) P.S.-
   Balipur, District-Dhanbad.
   (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were Minors at the time of filing of appeal
   and were represented by the original respondent no.1 Ruplal Kisku
   who died during pendency of the appeal)
                                            ...   Claimants/Respondents
4. Shaiyad Md Mahtab, son of Shaiyad Md Safi Ahmed, resident of
   Bhikrajpur, Baliapur, P.O. & P.S. Baliapur, District- Dhanbad
                                    ...     Opp. Party No.1/Respondent
                          ---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

———

SPONSORED

For the Appellant:        Mr Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents:      None
                          ---------
20/Dated: 31.07.2026

1. Heard Mr Alol Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company challenges the judgment and

award dated 7th of June 2016 made by MACT, Dhanbad.

3. Mr Lal submits that in this case the appellant-Insurance Company

has raised a specific defence that the offending Tempo (insured

vehicle) did not have any permit to ply as an auto-rickshaw at the

time of the accident. He submitted that this amounts to a

fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy and

therefore no liability could have been foisted on the appellant-

Insurance Company. In the alternative, he submitted that a pay-
Page 1 of 4
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22711

and-recovery order should have been made. He relied on Amrit

Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 558, in support of his contention.

4. In the written statement filed by the appellant-Insurance Company

at paragraph 12 this is what was pleaded:-

“12. That the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 are put to

strict proof that the Registered Owner used the Vehicle

bearing No. JH-10AF-7649 without any breach of permit

and Traffic Rules as per Motor Vehicle Act and Motor

Vehicle Rules. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 are put

to strict proof that there was no violation of any Section of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and its subsequent

amendments.”

5. The above pleading does not amount to a denial or a positive

statement that the Tempo did not have a valid permit. This is a

general and evasive denial about practically everything. The

appellant-Insurance Company has denied that the 1st defendant was

a registered owner or that the vehicle was used without any breach

of permit and Traffic Rules as per the Motor Vehicle Act and

Motor Vehicle Rules. The plaintiffs and the defendants were put to

strict proof about practically everything.

6. Based upon the above pleading, it cannot be said that any serious

plea about the fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of

the insurance policy was at all raised. Even otherwise, the burden

of proving a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance

Page 2 of 4
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22711

policy would be upon the Insurance Company which is alleging

the same. The Insurance Company cannot, based upon such vague

pleas, impose excessive burden on the owners of the insured

vehicles.

7. In this case, if the Insurance Company was indeed serious about its

plea of fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the

insurance policy, nothing prevented the appellant-Insurance

Company from taking a precise plea and, after that, leading

evidence to the effect that the Tempo in question did not possess

any route permit or permit on the date of the accident. No evidence

was led on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.

8. In the above factual circumstances, the decision relied upon by Mr

Lal would not apply. In that case, there was positive evidence that

the vehicle in question was being driven without a permit. Besides,

in this case, there is nothing to establish that the alleged non-

possession of a permit had any nexus with the accident.

9. For the above reasons, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal

and dismiss this appeal without any order for costs.

10. However, before dismissing the appeal, I note that in this case, the

Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs. 5,000/- towards

funeral expenses and another Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate.

Though there were four claimants, no amount has been awarded

towards consortium.

11. It is the duty of this Court to ensure that just compensation is paid

to the claimants. Following the law laid down in Sarla Verma v.

Page 3 of 4

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22711

Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation towards

funeral expenses would be Rs. 15,000/- and towards loss of estate

another Rs. 15,000/-. Towards consortium, compensation payable

would be Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants, i.e., a consolidated

amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus, an additional compensation of Rs.

2,20,000/- must be paid to the claimants in this case as and by way

of ‘just compensation’.

12. This appeal is dismissed, but the compensation is enhanced by a

further amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. This additional compensation

must be deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in this

Court within six weeks from today together with interest @ 6% per

annum, which is already awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned

award, by adjusting the statutory amount.

13. Upon deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the said

amount by furnishing identity and bank details. The Registry must

transfer the compensation/interest amount directly into the bank

accounts of the claimants. Under no circumstances should the

transfers be otherwise than through regular banking channels.

14. The Member Secretary, JLSA must render all assistance to the

claimants.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
July 31, 2026
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2
Uploaded on 03.08.2026

Page 4 of 4