Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Son Of Late … vs (1) Mostt. Kaijan Bibi Wife Of Late … on 20 February, 2026
2026:JHHC:5185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 468 of 2014
SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY son of Late Janardan Choudhary,
resident of Dumka (Bhagalpur Road), PO-Dumka Town, P.S.-
Dumka Town, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. (registered owner of Bus)
... Appellant
Versus
(1) Mostt. Kaijan Bibi wife of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(2) Tanvir Hassan son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(3) Zaffar Ekbal, son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(4) Umnechani Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(5) Sarfaraj Ansari son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(6) Tarik Anwar son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(7) Umme Enan Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(8) Umme Habiba Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(9) Misbaul Hussan son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(10) Mehar Atsa Khatoon daughter of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(11) Tabesh Zaffar son of Late Shahnawaj Ansari
(As per age mentioned in claim petition filed by the claimants now
respondent no. 3 to 7 became major and respondent no. 8 to 11 are
minors and represented through their natural guardian i.e. mother
Mostt. Kaijan Bibi.)
All resident of Taljhari (Nawadih) Banjhi Panchayat, P.O. Poraiyahat
P.S. Poraiyahat (Deodanr) and District- Godda.
(12) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
Shyam Bazar Road, Dumka Branch, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, Dumka,
Jharkhand.
(13) Munilal Yadav, son of Nakul Yadav, resident of Dhaka, P.O.
Barahat, P.S.-Barahat, District- Banka (Bihar).
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
---------
17/Dated:20.02.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal challenges Award dated 23.06.2014 made by the
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Godda to the extent it imposes the
entire liability on the appellant-owner of the offending an insured
-1 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5185
vehicle and absolves the Insurance Company. No doubt, the
impugned Award has determined that even the deceased contributed
to his demise in the accident and to that extent, determined the
contributory liability to the extent of 20 per cent i.e. Rs.72,000/-.
3. The Tribunal firstly held that the appellant had failed to produce
any transport permit based upon which passengers were being
carried in the offending vehicle i.e. Bus No. BR-35-4155. Secondly,
the Tribunal has held that even carrying passengers on the ladder
behind the bus or on the roof of the bus amounts to a breach of one
of the fundamental terms of the insurance policy.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide I.A.
No. 3974 of 2025, the appellant was permitted to produce additional
documentary evidence on record. This includes the stage carriage
permit in the prescribed form and a temporary permit. He submitted
that both these documents would show that there were valid permits
at the time of the accident.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, on account of
the Lok Sabha elections, there was an unprecedented rush, and
despite protests from the driver and the conductor, several
passengers, including the deceased, climbed onto the roof of the bus
or clung to the ladder behind the bus. He submitted that, in such
circumstances, it should not be held that the owner had committed
any breach of the insurance policy terms.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal vs. Parwati
-2 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5185
Devi and others, reported in (2005) SCC OnLine Jhar 199 to
support his contentions.
7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that
there was no reason why the two permits were not produced by the
appellant before the Tribunal. He submitted that such belated
evidence, without explaining due diligence, should not be considered.
In any event, he submitted that Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 titled
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Giriraj Prasad Agrawal and Others against the decision of the Full
Bench in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal (supra) was disposed of by holding
that the Insurance Company would be entitled to pay and recover
order.
8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.
9. The appellant’s application invoking the principles under Order
XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional
evidence is already allowed by order dated 27.11.2025. In any event,
the evidence sought to be produced is documents issued by public
authorities, i.e. Stage Carriage Permit and temporary permit. Both the
documents suggest that the offending bus had a permit to carry
passengers, and the validity of such Stage Carriage Permit was from
21.11.2001 to 20.11.2006. Besides, even a temporary permit with
validity period from 05.04.2004 to 07.04.2004 is produced on record.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant explained that this
occurred during the Lok Sabha elections. The accident was on
05.04.2004. Therefore, based upon the documentary evidence now
admitted at the appellate stage, the ground that the offending vehicle
-3 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5185
was carrying passengers without a valid permit will no longer hold
good.
11. Nevertheless, the evidence on record merely shows that
passengers, including the deceased, were travelling on the ladder
annexed to the bus. The Full Bench in Giriraj Prasad Agarwal
(supra) has held that even in respect of passengers travelling on the
roof, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to
the exclusion of the owner of the bus involved in the accident.
However, the Insurance Company appealed the Full Bench decision
vide Civil Appeal No.2421 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 16th January
2014, disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008 by making the
following order:-
“National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. It
challenges the award passed by the Tribunal, affirmed by the
High Court. On 3rd October, 2005, this Court while issuing
notice, confined it to the respondent No.1, namely, the owner
of the vehicle, with reference to right of the appellant to
recover the awarded amount from the insured.
Though, notice duly been served on the respondent
No.1, for the reasons best known to him, he has not chosen to
contest the appeal by engaging a counsel.
We were taken through the award passed by the
Tribunal, as well as the reasons in the order of the High Court.
In view of the limited notice and the fact that in this appeal,
there is no need to go into other aspects, leaving the question
of law to be decided in an appropriate case, we permit the
appellant-Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount
from the respondent No.1-insured.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.”
13. Accordingly, the interest of justice would be met if the impugned
Award is modified by directing the Insurance Company to first pay the
-4 of 5-
2026:JHHC:5185
awarded amount together with interest to the claimants within two
months from the uploading of this judgment and order and then to
recover this amount from the appellant.
14. The impugned Award is modified to this extent.
15. The appeal is disposed of without any order for costs. All
concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of the order.
16. Interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and are
disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
20.02.2026
APK/VK
Uploaded on 24.02.2026
-5 of 5-
