RANCHI, India, March 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 20:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle challenges the impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2024 mainly on the ground that the Insurance Company should not have been absolved of its liability to indemnify the appellant.

3. The appellant succeeded in obtaining ad-interim relief from this Court on 13.10.2025 without depositing any amount. Because the matter could not reach, the ad interim order was extended from time to time. Finally, on 13.02.2026, this Court, while extending the ad-interim order directed the learned counsel for the appellant to obtain instructions as to how much amount the applicant/appellant will deposit as a pre-condition for further extension of stay. The matter was then posted for 20th February, 2026.

4. On 20th February, 2026 i.e. today, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was prepared to argue the entire appeal because he was confident that there was no breach of the insurance policy or of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the appeal itself may be heard finally. He submitted that he had no instructions to make any statement about deposit of any amount in this Court as a pre-condition for extension of the stay. In short, the appellant was insistent upon interim relief without making any deposit whatsoever.

5. Considering the plight of the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Suraj Kumar, the appeal was taken up for final hearing at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Mr Arbind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in this case, there was evidence that the deceased had hired the pick-up van for his business purposes of purchasing vegetables, and therefore, he could not have been regarded as a gratuitous passenger of the goods vehicle. He referred to the deposition of the claimants' witnesses and submitted that their evidence shows that the deceased had hired the pick-up van and was not some gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle.

7. Mr. Arbind Kumar further submitted that the pick-up van does not require any permit and therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the owner of the pick-up van in this case.

8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the appellant never examined himself, though he would have been in the best position to establish whether the pick-up van was indeed hired by the deceased and the deceased was not merely a gratuitous passenger. He submitted that the evidence of the claimant and the witnesses nowhere says that the pick-up van was hired; instead, the evidence establishes that the deceased was one of the 5 passengers travelling on the 'Dala' of the pick-up van. Therefore, he submitted that the Insurance Company was correctly absolved in this matter.

9. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

10. As regards the issue of the permit, though the submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellant, they were never substantiated. In any event, on this ground, a pay and recover order could have been made so that the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, are not left at the mercy of the appellant, who seems to be determined not to pay any compensation amount at all. To that extent, the impugned award warrants interference.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqD8bvhx%2FRWnF9FJ2ec8G3JYEHseP5gNdu2YG%2Ba5Q%2BRMV&caseno=MA/358/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010290012024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.