The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.185 of 2008 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) National Manager, Branch Insurance Company Limited, Main Road, Jeypore represented through the Officer in Charge, Orissa Legal Cell National Insurance Company, Cantonment Road, Cuttack -versus- …. Appellant Raj Kishore Khosla and others …. Respondents Appeared in this case:- For Appellant For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate Mr. A.K. Kar, Advocate MACA No.186 of 2008 …. Appellant National Manager, Branch Insurance Company Limited, Main Road, Jeypore represented through the Officer in Charge, Orissa Legal Cell National Insurance Company, Cantonment Road, Cuttack -versus- Japitha Khura and others …. Respondents Appeared in this case:- For Appellant For Respondents : : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate None // 2 // CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 29.08.2024 / date of judgment :04.09.2024 A.C. Behera, J. Since these two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred separately by the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, who was the Respondent No.2 in two cases vide MAC Case No.260 of 2006 and MAC Case No.261 of 2006 arising out of same and one accident, then, both the appeals were taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment after hearing from both the sides at the stage of admission, as the L.C.Rs. of these two appeals were available. 2. The factual backgrounds of these appeals, which prompted the appellant for preferring the same are that, on 14.05.1999, while Santoshmani Khosla, Bijaya Kumar Khura and others were returning from Lamtaput to Koraput in a Jeep, the said Jeep met with an accident against a standing truck on the road, which was standing on the road violating the traffic rules. By the result of such accident, Santoshmani Khosla and Bijaya Kumar Khura sustained injuries and expired being succumbed to their motor vehicular accidental injuries and other persons of the said Jeep sustained injuries. After the death of the above two Page 2 of 6 // 3 // deceased persons, their legal representatives filed separate claim applications vide MAC Case No.156 of 1999 and MAC Case No.157 of 1999 against the owner of the offending truck as well as the insurer thereof, i.e., Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited arraying them as Opposite Parties/Respondents claiming compensation for the motor vehicular accidental death of the above two persons. 3. In the written statement of the defendant no.1 (owner of the offending truck), denied his liability by stating that, his truck was duly insured before the Opposite Party No.2-Insuance Company at the time of the alleged accident. For which, all the accidental liabilities shall be borne by the Opposite Party No.2(Insurance Company) not by him (Opposite Party No.1). 4. The defendant No.2-Insurance Company in its written statement also denied the liability by stating that, the owner of the offending truck, i.e., Opposite Party No.1 had violated the insurance policy condition of the offending truck bearing Registration No.ORG-7425, because, the driver of the said offending truck had not possessed a valid and effective license at the time of accident, for which, all the accidental liabilities shall be borne by the insured/owner(Opposite Party No.1), but, not by the insurer (Opposite Party No.2). Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 5. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, at the time of accident, the offending truck was not moving, but, the same was standing on the road violating the road traffic laws, for which, police submitted charge- sheet against the driver of the offending truck alleging his negligence for keeping the truck on the road at the time of accident in violation of road traffic laws. 6. As per the materials in the record, at the time of accident, the offending truck was standing. The said truck was not in moving condition and that truck was also not in starting condition. 7. According to law, when an offending vehicle being driven by a person not holding valid driving license, causes an accident, in that case, the insurer, i.e., the Insurance Company becomes liable. 8. There is no material in the record on behalf of the Insurance Company to show about the cause and reason of standing of the offending truck on the road at the place of accident. 9. During standing of san offending vehicle on the road for any unforeseen cause like mechanical failure, which will have no nexus with the driving license of the driver of the said truck, if an accident occurs, in that case, insurer of that offending vehicle cannot escape from its liability. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 10. On this aspect propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decision:- (i) 2005(3) CCC-69(Gauhati) : United Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Rodingliana and another—Section 149—Though it is duty cast on a driver to hold a valid driving licence for driving a particular type of vehicle but if accident occurred solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening cause like mechanical failure having no nexus with possession of requisite type of licence, Insurance Company cannot escape liability merely for such technical breach of condition. 11. When, there is no material in the record to show any cause or reason about the standing of the offending truck at the spot of accident and when the possibility of its standing there on the road at the spot of accident for any unforeseen or intervening cause like its mechanical failure having no nexus/connection with the driving license of the driver thereof is not ruled out, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the Insurance Company(appellant) cannot escape its liability from payment of compensation of such motor vehicular accident. 12. For which, there is no justification under law to admit these appeals preferred by the insurer of the offending truck for making further delay in payment of the awarded compensation to the poor claimants, those are the legal representatives of the deceaseds of the motor vehicular accident in MAC Case No.260 of 2006 and MAC No.261 of 2006 in Page 5 of 6 // 6 // which, the judgments (awards) were passed way back in the year 2007, i.e., on dated 31.10.2007. 13. Hence, both the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed on merit without being admitted. 14. Accordingly both the appeals vide MACA No.185 of 2008 and
Decision
MACA No.186 of 2008 are disposed of finally. Registry is directed to send back the LCRs of these two MACA Nos.185 and 186 of 2008 forthwith for payment of the awarded compensation amount with interest to the claimants as directed by the learned MACT, Jeypore as early as possible. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 4th of September, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 05-Sep-2024 17:53:20 Page 6 of 6