Case Background
The case arose from a road accident that took place on 28.08.2014. The claimant, Abhishek Anand, was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration number BR-08D-6814.
At that time, a tractor bearing registration number BR-53-6059, with a trailer BR-53-6060, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. The motorcycle was damaged and the claimant suffered serious injuries.
He was immediately shifted to Sadar Hospital, Munger. On 02.09.2014, Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 144 of 2014 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor. A charge sheet was later submitted vide no. 195 of 2014 on 30.09.2014.
After the criminal case, the injured claimant filed a compensation case before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal. This became Claim Case No. 54 of 2015 (CR No. 69 of 2015) before the Additional District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Munger.
Notices were issued by the Tribunal to the National Insurance Company Limited (the insurer), to the tractor owner and to the driver. The insurance company appeared and contested the claim. As per the order sheet, the owner and driver chose not to appear despite service of notice.
On 03.01.2020, the Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- with 7% interest, to be paid within 60 days. The Tribunal held that the tractor was insured with National Insurance Company Limited and that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver.
Aggrieved by this award, the insurance company filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 2021 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The appeal was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy. The appellant was the National Insurance Company Limited, Patna Regional Office. The main respondent was the injured claimant, along with the tractor owner and driver.
The Tribunal had framed key issues in the claim case, such as whether the case was maintainable, whether the claimant was entitled to relief, whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, whether the tractor was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, and whether the claimant was entitled to the claimed amount.
After recording evidence, the Tribunal made several important findings. It held that the accident did occur due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. It recorded that the claimant had come under the tyre of the tractor and could be removed only with the help of a JCB machine, and that his bones were fractured.
The Tribunal also found that the tractor was insured with National Insurance Company Limited and that the insurance policy was valid from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015, which covered the date of accident. The charge sheet had been submitted against the tractor driver, Jaidrath Yadav, and the exhibits before the Tribunal confirmed the fact of valid insurance.
The claimant stated before the Tribunal that he was a private teacher running a coaching institute and that he earned Rs. 5,000/- per month. Though he could not produce a salary slip, witnesses supported the claim that he was running a coaching institute and had an income.
The medical documents from Sadar Hospital, Munger, showed that the claimant had suffered injuries resulting in 20% disability. Based on these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the tractor, that it was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, and that the claimant was injured and entitled to compensation.
For calculating compensation, the Tribunal assessed the claimant’s monthly income at a minimal figure of Rs. 3,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 5,000/- claimed. Using this lower income figure and considering the 20% disability and other factors, it arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- with 7% interest, payable within 60 days.
In the appeal before the Patna High Court, learned counsel for the insurance company restricted the challenge to two specific points.
First, he argued that no salary slip was provided by or on behalf of the claimant, so his income should not have been accepted. Second, he argued that the Tribunal did not grant the insurance company the right to recover the compensation amount from the tractor owner or driver even though there was nothing on record to show that the tractor driver had a valid driving licence and the owner and driver had chosen not to appear despite service.
The High Court carefully considered the entire factual background. It noted that it was an admitted case that the claimant, who was moving on a motorcycle, was hit by the tractor insured with the appellant company. The accident was so serious that a JCB had to be used to remove him from under the tractor. His bones were broken and he was treated at Sadar Hospital, Munger. The medical certificate showed that he now had 20% disability.
On the first point about income, the Court observed that the claimant had said he was running a coaching institute and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Even though there was no salary slip, the Tribunal had already reduced the claimed income to a minimal amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month.
The Court held that there could not be any amount lower than what had been fixed by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, it rejected the first contention of the insurance company regarding income and quantum. In other words, the compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was upheld.
On the second contention, the Court recognised that the tractor owner and driver had failed to appear despite valid service of notice and had not produced any valid driving licence. The vehicle was insured with the appellant company, but the insurer had raised the issue of there being no proof that the driver had a proper driving licence.
The High Court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parmindar Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 50. It specifically quoted paragraph 7.1 of that judgment, which in turn referred to Shamanna and Others vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others. The Supreme Court had held that where the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of “pay and recover” can be applied. Under this principle, the insurance company is directed to first pay the victim and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Patna High Court held that the insurance company should be granted liberty to recover the compensation amount from the tractor owner or driver, in accordance with law, if it is able to prove absence of a valid driving licence or breach of policy conditions.
Accordingly, the Court issued specific directions. First, it held that the insurance company is duly bound to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with 7% interest to the claimant by 15.12.2025.
Second, it clarified that if the company fails to pay by 15.12.2025, then from 16.12.2025 the claimant will be entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the award amount.
Third, it further held that if the payment is still not made by 31.03.2025, the claimant shall also be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- besides the 9% interest from 16.12.2025. The Court added that this extra amount shall be recovered by the company from the officer who tries to delay the payment to the claimant.
The Court recorded that an undertaking had already been given by learned counsel for the insurance company that the amount would be cleared by 15.12.2025. In view of that, the Tribunal was requested to defer the matter till that date.
With these observations and directions, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 2021 was disposed of. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was maintained, and the insurer’s appeal on quantum was rejected, though liberty to recover from the owner/driver was granted.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is important for road accident victims and their families, as well as for insurance companies and vehicle owners.
First, it shows that even when an injured person does not have formal salary slips, the court can still accept reasonable evidence of income, especially for self-employed or informal workers like private teachers running coaching institutes. The Court refused to reduce income below a modest figure of Rs. 3,000/- per month.
Second, it reinforces that insurance companies cannot avoid paying genuine accident victims merely because they suspect that the driver had no valid licence or that the owner did not cooperate. The Court applied the Supreme Court’s “pay and recover” principle. This protects victims by ensuring they get compensation first.
Third, the judgment is notable for its strict timeline for payment and for imposing higher interest and even a personal cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the responsible officer if there is delay. This sends a strong message against unnecessary delay in paying court-awarded compensation.
Overall, the decision balances the rights of the victim and the insurer. It secures quick relief to the injured person while preserving the insurer’s right to recover money from the vehicle owner or driver if there was any violation of policy conditions, such as absence of a valid driving licence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Should the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and the resultant compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- be reduced for want of salary slips?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that Rs. 3,000/- per month was already a minimal income assessment, supported by witness evidence that the claimant was running a coaching institute, and refused to lower it further. - Issue: When the tractor owner and driver do not appear and do not produce a valid driving licence, can the insurer be given a right to recover the compensation amount from them after paying the victim?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Parmindar Singh and the principle of “pay and recover”, the Court held that the insurer must first pay the claimant and is then at liberty to recover the amount from the tractor owner/driver in accordance with law. - Issue: What are the consequences if the insurer delays payment of the awarded amount beyond the time fixed by the Court?
Answer: The insurer must pay enhanced interest at 9% from 16.12.2025, and if payment is not made by 31.03.2025, the claimant will also get an additional Rs. 25,000/-. This extra amount is to be recovered from the officer responsible for the delay.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Parmindar Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 50, relying on Shamanna & Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (principle of “pay and recover”).
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 2021
Case Title: The National Insurance Company Limited vs. Abhishek Anand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 240
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Date of High Court Judgment: 20.11.2025
Tribunal Judgment Challenged: Judgment dated 03.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Munger in Claim Case No. 54 of 2015 (CR No. 69 of 2015)
Parties: Appellant – The National Insurance Company Limited, Patna Regional Office; Respondents – Abhishek Anand (injured claimant), Manish Kumar (tractor owner), Jaidrath Yadav (tractor driver)
Advocates: For the Appellant – Mr. Rupak Kumar; For the Respondents – Not mentioned in the judgment
Nature of Case: Miscellaneous Appeal challenging award in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
