IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 272 of 2023 Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, CB-3 Ranchi Dangra Toli Chowk, Purlia Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, PO.O. Ranchi, District – Ranchi, through Deputy Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, having its Office at Prabodh Tower, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi (Opp. Party No. 4) …. Appellant Versus

1. Arti Devi wife of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar

2. Ayush Kumar son of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @ Bijay Kumar

3. Archana Kumari, daughter of Late Bijay Sahu @ Bijay Prasad, @

Bijay Kumar, (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are minors represented through their mother being natural guardian as their next friend) All residing at Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Applicant/ Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 respectively)

4. Sanjay Sahu Son of Gyani Sahu resident of Village Jairaigi, P.S.

Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Ostensible Owner of the offending vehicle Reg. No.UP 64A-

4376)

(Opp. Party No. 1)

5. Awadh Prasad son of Sanjay Sahu (Driver) resident of Village Jairaigi, P.S. Dumri, P.O. & District-Gumla (Driver)

Opposite Party No.2)

6. Arun Kumar Prasad son of Late Heeralal Prasad resident of village Ganga Nagar. Badri Bhawan Gali, Ratu Road, P.S Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O. & District- Ranchi (Registered owner of Jeep UP 64A-4376)

(Opposite Party No.3)

... Respondents ---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ---------

For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1,2&3: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No.6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate ---------

12/Dated: 15.01.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. This is because it arises out of an accident which took place in the year 2008, in which Bijay Sahu, aged 40 years, lost his life.

4. His widow and two minor children instituted a claim petition, in which they were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,79,600/- by the impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2023.

5. Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that in this case, the insured vehicle, i.e. Jeep bearing Registration No. UP 64A-4376 was not involved in the accident. He submitted that this is in fact the stand taken by the registered owner, i.e. Respondent No. 6 in this present appeal, in his written statement. He submitted that in collusion with the Motor Vehicle Inspector and other police authorities, this vehicle was shown as involved, but, in fact, the same was not at all involved. Mr Alok Lal submitted that on this ground, there was no question of fastening any liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.

6. Mr Alok Lal, without prejudice to the above, submitted that there was evidence that the insured vehicle was a private vehicle, but at the time of the accident, the same was given out for hire. The status of the deceased Bijay Sahu was that of a non-gratuitous passenger or a fare- paying passenger. Mr Alok Lal submitted that this was a clear breach of the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, no liability could have been foisted upon the appellant-Insurance Company.

7. Mr Alok Lal also tried to contend that, in this case, no evidence was produced to show that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed a valid driving license. He submitted that in the absence of evidence about the driver having a valid driving license, no liability could have been foisted on the appellant-Insurance Company.

8. Mr. Alok Lal fairly accepted that in a claim arising out of this very accident, the appellant-Insurance Company settled the matter with some other claimant in the Lok Adalat proceedings. However, he submitted that there can be neither estoppel against the law nor equality of illegalities. Therefore, merely because the appellant-Insurance Company may have settled the amount with some of the claimants in the Lok Adalat, upon coming to know of the fraud involved,