Patna High Court - Orders
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Manorama Devi on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2023
======================================================
National Insurance Company Ltd.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Manorama Devi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 05-02-2026Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharan, learned counsel for the appellant company (National Insurance Company Limited) and Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi for the claimant respondents.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):
"for setting aside the judgment dated 25.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge-XIII-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 377/2012, C.I.S. No. 2516/14, Manorama Devi & others versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others arising out of death of Nitish Kumar, claimaints are wife and father respectively, whereby and where under learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the appellant and directed the opposite party National Insurance Patna High Court MA No.58 of 2023(6) dt.05-02-2026 2/4 Company Ltd. To pay total comopensation of Rs.9,66,800/- (Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Only) after deducting the amount paid Rs.50,000/- as NFL, the remaining total amount is Rs.9,16,800/- to be paid to both the claimants as 50-50 percent i.e. 4,58,400/- to each claimant with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 19.12.2012."
3. Since the claimant has already appeared through Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, the matter is being taken up for an appropriate order.
4. An accident took place on 16.07.2012 when a Truck bearing Registration No. WB-41E-1318 dashed with a Jeep bearing Registration No. BR-1P-4949. The accident took place at 5 AM near Brahmasthan on Patna-Gaya Road and led to injury to number of persons beside the death of Vinod Prasad and Nitish Kumar.
5. The Truck was insured with the appellant company with a valid policy between 28.02.2012 to 27.02.2013. While the family members of Vinod Prasad preferred Claim Case No. 376 of 2012 (Devkali Devi & Ors. vs. Md. Safi Ahmand & Ors.), the wife of Nitish Kumar preferred Claim Case No. 377 of 2012. Patna High Court MA No.58 of 2023(6) dt.05-02-2026 3/4
6. The judgment in the Claim Case No. 376 of 2012 was delivered by the court of Additional District Judge-XI, Patna-cum-Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Patna (henceforth for short 'the Tribunal'). The second judgment relating to present appellant was delivered on 25 June 2022.
7. Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi representing the claimant has provided records passed in Devkali Devi & Ors. (supra) to show that in the Execution Case No. 909 of 2012, taking into account the fact that the amount has been handed over to Devkali Devi/family members vide cheque dated 30.03.2023, the said case was disposed of on 25.04.2023. His contention is that that no appeal was preferred by the appellant company in the case of Devkali Devi (supra) but when the order dated 25 th June 2022 was passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-XIII, Patna-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Patna, the same has been challenged in the present appeal, no payment made save and except the initial amount of Rs.50,000/-.
8. Further, on 22.12.2023, to save the skin, a fixed deposit receipt was provided that led to the stay of the proceeding of Execution Case No. 908 of 2012 till further order. The contention is that two different views have been taken by the Insurance Company which cannot be allowed. A payment has been made to the widow/family members of Vinod Prasad; Patna High Court MA No.58 of 2023(6) dt.05-02-2026 4/4 in the present case, the lady/family members have been denied compensation even after the passing of 14 years.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Sharan submits that he be allowed to verify the said fact and shall be filing supplementary affidavit by 17 th February, 2026 after service of copy to the learned counsel for the claimants.
10. It is made clear that if it comes to the notice of the Court that the appellant company chose not to file any appeal against the order passed in Claim Case No. 376 of 2012 and paid the amount diligently while procuring stay in the present matter, an adverse order may be expected.
11. It is further made clear that if the appellant company so wants; can release the cheque/draft in favour of the claimants which must be incorporated in the supplementary affidavit to be filed before next date of hearing.
12. Let the matter come up on 19.02.2026.
(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/-
U