JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.514 of 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 1. Rama Devi Gupta @ Rama 2. Kartika Kumar Gupta …. Appellants -versus- 1. Universal Road Ways Corporation 2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
negligence is ex facie erroneous. The quantification of lump sum amount without following multiplier method is also liable to be interfered with. In this context, attention of this Court is drawn to the evidence of the eye witness P.W.2 that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car and it is apt to note that the charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending car vide Ext.2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Mr. Nath opposed such prayer relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Page 3 of 6 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Lehur1, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Swaran Singh2 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Najapana3. 7. As already noted Opposite Party No.2- Insurance Company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate its claim and the evidence on record regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending car has remained unchallenged. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants that the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be set aside and this Court is of the considered view on the basis of the evidence on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing registration number AP-31-F- 4590 which was duly insured with the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company and as such the compensation is payable by Respondent No.2. 8. So far as quantification of compensation is concerned, there being nothing on record to the contrary this Court affirms the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month and that he was aged about 25 years at the time of unfortunate
Arguments
For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate (R-2) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants- Claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. The Appellants–Claimants assailing the judgment dated 11.09.2006 passed by the learned 1st M.A.C.T, Koraput at Jeypore in MAC Case No.101 of 2001 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Claimants with Page 1 of 6 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 27.08.2001, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The case of the Appellants-Claimants is that the deceased Ganesh Kumar Gupta while he was going towards Boriguma in an auto rickshaw, the offending car bearing registration number AP-31-F-4590 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said auto rickshaw as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and later on he succumbed to the said injuries on his way to the hospital. As such, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondent No.1- owner of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the case denying his liability. Respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Company Limited as Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its written statement opposing the claim. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed; “1. Whether the deceased Ganesh Kumar Gupta died in a motor accident caused by collision of both the vehicles i.e. the car bearing registration No. AP.-31-F-4590 and Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. M.P. 25 B-2351 and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car or the deceased had any contribution in the said accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so what should be the quantum and who is liable to pay the same? Page 2 of 6 3. To what other relief?” In order to substantiate their stand, Claimant No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and one independent witness as P.W.2. On their behalf four documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 4. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondents. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the application. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants, Mr.Panigrahi that the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding contributory