Case Background
This case arises out of a tragic road accident involving a passenger bus. The deceased, Sada Nand Sharma, was working as a conductor on Bus No. BPP-9783.
On 06.07.1996, at about 12:30 a.m., this bus met with an accident with another bus. The accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus.
Sada Nand Sharma suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to Kodarma Sub-Hospital for treatment. Despite medical care, he died on the same day, i.e., 06.07.1996. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the same day by the Civil Surgeon.
A criminal case was registered against the vehicle involved. The police investigated the matter under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, regarding rash driving and causing death by negligence. After investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the driver of the bus.
The widow of the deceased, along with her two minor sons, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhisarai, registered as Claim Case No. 28 of 2001, titled “Kum Kum Devi & Ors vs. Sashi Bhushan Singh & Ors”.
They claimed compensation for the death of the breadwinner of the family, who was working as a conductor on the offending bus. Multiple buses and multiple insurance companies were involved in the proceedings, as several vehicles and insurers were arrayed as parties.
The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai, acting as the Tribunal, passed a judgment dated 25.01.2010 and an Award dated 15.04.2010. The Tribunal fastened liability for payment of compensation on all three insurance companies involved and directed them to pay the compensation amount.
According to the High Court judgment, two of the insurance companies did pay the compensation amount, as on the date of the accident the concerned vehicles were insured with them. However, one insurer, United India Insurance Company Limited, disputed its liability.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhagalpur, through its Regional Office at Patna, filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal No. 447 of 2013 before the Patna High Court. It challenged the Tribunal’s judgment and award to the extent that liability was imposed on it.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar, heard the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited. The main question was whether this particular insurer was liable to pay compensation when it claimed that the bus was not insured with it on the date of the accident.
The appellant insurance company’s case was clear. It argued that on the date and time of the accident, the offending vehicle (Bus No. BPP-9783) was not insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Further, the insurance policy number mentioned in the claim petition was alleged to be fake and forged.
To support its stand, the appellant relied on its written statement filed before the Tribunal. The High Court specifically notes that in paragraphs 4, 11A and 11B of that written statement, the insurance company had categorically stated that the vehicle was not insured with it on the date of the accident.
Significantly, the Court records that these specific averments were not controverted by the counsel for the claimants. This means that the statement that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant company on the relevant date remained unchallenged on record.
The Court also noted the conduct of the bus owner and driver. Despite valid service of notice, both before the Tribunal and in the High Court appeal, the owner and driver of the offending bus did not appear to contest the case. They did not deny the insurance company’s plea that there was no valid insurance policy with the appellant on the date of the accident.
As recorded in the judgment, the policy number given in the claim case petition by the claimants (the widow and minor sons of the deceased) was, on inquiry, found to be forged and fabricated. On this basis, the appellant contended that it had no liability to indemnify the owner of the bus.
The High Court considered the rival submissions and examined the records of the Tribunal. After doing so, the Court reached a clear factual finding: the offending vehicle was not insured with United India Insurance Company Limited on the date on which the bus met with the accident resulting in the death of the deceased.
Once this factual finding was reached, the legal result followed. The Court held that the order of the Tribunal directing United India Insurance Company Limited to pay the compensation could not be sustained. That portion of the Tribunal’s judgment and award was set aside.
At the same time, the Court was careful to protect the rights of the claimants. It recorded that the occurrence of the accident itself was admitted by all parties before the Tribunal. It also took note that, after investigation, the police had found the case under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code to be true, confirming rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus.
Therefore, the Court held that the claimants (widow and minor sons) were entitled to compensation. The only question was: from whom should they recover it?
The Court modified the Tribunal’s order to clarify this. It held that the liability to pay the compensation amount lay with the owner of the bus and not with the appellant insurance company. Specifically, the liability was fastened upon respondent no. 4, who was the owner of Bus No. BPP-9783, the offending vehicle.
The High Court stated that the direction of the Tribunal, insofar as it required the appellant insurance company to indemnify the vehicle owner, was set aside. The owner of the bus remained legally responsible for the compensation awarded to the claimants.
Recognising that some amount had already been dealt with at the Tribunal level, the Court also gave directions regarding the statutory deposit made by the appellant insurance company in connection with the appeal. It ordered that the statutory amount deposited by the appellant be refunded to it by way of a cheque prepared in the name of the company.
Importantly, the Court guided the claimants on the next step. It expressly stated that the claimants may approach the Executing Court to realise the compensation amount from respondent no. 4, the owner of the offending bus. Thus, the remedy for the claimants lies in execution proceedings against the bus owner, not against the appellant insurer.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court disposed of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 447 of 2013 by partly allowing it. The judgment and award of the Tribunal were modified only to the extent of shifting liability from the appellant insurer to the bus owner, while upholding the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation for the death of the conductor in the accident.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for accident victims and for vehicle owners and insurers in Bihar and beyond. It shows that, while courts are sympathetic to victims, they will not force an insurance company to pay compensation when there is no valid insurance policy.
For families like that of the deceased conductor, the decision confirms that they remain entitled to compensation where an accident and rash and negligent driving are established. Even if one insurer is found not liable, the owner of the vehicle must bear the responsibility.
For vehicle owners, the case underlines the serious risk of operating without genuine insurance. If a policy is forged or invalid, the owner cannot shift the burden to the insurance company and may personally have to pay the full compensation amount.
For insurers, particularly those appearing before the Patna High Court, the judgment confirms that they can be relieved of liability if they prove convincingly that no valid policy existed on the date of the accident, and if this stand is not effectively challenged.
Finally, the judgment offers a practical roadmap: when an insurer is discharged from liability, the claimants are not left helpless. They can proceed before the Executing Court to recover the awarded amount directly from the vehicle owner.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Was United India Insurance Company Limited liable to pay compensation for the death of the bus conductor when the bus was allegedly not insured with it on the date of the accident?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant insurer on the date of the accident, the policy details given were forged, and therefore the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner. -
Issue: Who is legally responsible to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants for the fatal accident?
Answer: The owner of the offending bus (respondent no. 4) is liable to pay the compensation, and the claimants may recover the amount from him through the Executing Court.
Cases Cited by the Court
The judgment text does not mention or rely upon any specific earlier case law. No prior decisions are cited by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 447 of 2013
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhagalpur vs. Kum Kum Devi and Others & Ors
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Date of High Court Judgment: 01.05.2019
Tribunal Judgment and Award Under Challenge: Judgment dated 25.01.2010 and Award dated 15.04.2010 in Claim Case No. 28 of 2001, “Kum Kum Devi & Ors vs. Sashi Bhushan Singh & Ors”, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai
Citation: 2019(3) PLJR 267
Advocates:
For the Appellant (United India Insurance Company Limited): Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 8 (New India Assurance Company Limited, Patna): Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 11–13 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited entities): Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1–3 (widow and minor sons of the deceased conductor): Mr. Ambrish Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondent No. 6 (owner of Bus BR.31A-8119P): Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate
Nature of the Case: Miscellaneous Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment and award in a motor accident compensation claim.
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment – MA No. 447 of 2013
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.
