The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.111 OF 2019 From the Judgment/Order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Dist. Judge-cum-1st MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No.1409 of 2019. Reliance G.I. Co. Ltd. :::: Appellant -:: VERSUS ::- Dharitri Mahapatra & Ors. :::: Respondents For Appellant :::: Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate For Respondents :::: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) ……… PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 22.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment- 22.04.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Memo containing the death certificate of Respondent No. 4 filed in Court be kept in record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Page 1 of 8 // 2 // 4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.11.09.2018 so passed by the learned 2nd ADJ-cum-4th MACT, Puri in MAC Case No. 75-8 of 2011-2009. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.26,86,432/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 5. While assailing the compensation so awarded, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company vehemently contended that the deceased never died due to any road accident caused by the offending vehicle on 21.03.2008. 5.1. It is contended that the deceased in fact while riding on his vehicle someone threw a green coconut from a bus riding on the same road, which dashed in his head for which he fell down from the vehicle and accordingly succumbed to the injury. It is also contended that such a news item was published in different new papers of the State reflecting that the deceased died due to throwing of a green coconut by somebody travelling in a bus in the same road. 5.2. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the deposition of OPW-1. OPW 1 in Para 2 of the said deposition has submitted as follows: - “2. I have enquired into U.D case No.31/2008 concerning to capital Police station. At that time I was attached to Capital P.S as S. I of Police. The I.I.C of Capital P.S received casualty memo from Capital Hospital on 21.3.2008 and directed me to Page 2 of 8 // 3 // make enquiry into the UD case and I started enquiry on that day. I examined some witnesses on that day. I examined one Sankarsan Mohapatra, the younger brother of the deceased on 21.3.2008. He stated before me that they heard from general public near spot that while starting riding on the vehicle, one bus also riding on the same road and from that bus someone threw a green coconut and that coconut dashed his head for which he fell down with his vehicle. I also examined other witnesses on the same day. None of the witnesses involved the truck for the accident and all have stated that it was a road accident. I have conducted inquest over the dead body. The witnesses to inquest have stated that it was due to road accident.” 5.3. A further submissions was also made in her cross-examination. P.W. 1 in Para 27 also admits that the deceased while travelling in a motor cycle, somebody threw a green coconut from a bus, which dashed against his head and accordingly the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injury. Statement of P.W. 1 in Para 27 of her deposition reads as follows:- “27. Our family has fame in the locality. I do not know if the fact of accident end death of my husband had been published in all the daily news Papers namely Dharitri, Samaj and Sambad. I do not know if it was published in the news Item that while my deceased husband was travelling in motor cycle some body threw a used green coconut to outside and it came in contact with the head of my deceased husband and as such he fell down and succumbed to the injury sustained in the head.” Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 5.4. Placing reliance on the deposition of OPW 1 as well as P.W. 1, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that since the deceased never died due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle, it is a clear case of connivance of the Claimants along with the Owner of the offending vehicle to plant the offending vehicle to have caused the accident in question. 5.5. A further contention was also raised that without having any proof, the Tribunal committed wrong by taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,66,122/-. It is contended that because of such wrong committed by the Tribunal, the compensation amount was assessed at a higher side. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed wrong in allowing 40% towards future prospect, on the face of the fact that the deceased was a partner in the firm in question. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the impugned judgment needs interference of this Court. 6. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants- Respondents on the other hand contended that immediately after the accident took place on 21.03.2008, F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased, by implicating the offending vehicle to have caused the accident. 6.1. It is also contended that I.O. of the case after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet on 21.03.2008 for the offence under Sec. 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code. The said fact is also admitted by OPW 1 in his cross examination. Statement of OPW 1 recorded from Para 4 to 6 reads as follows:- Page 4 of 8 // 5 // “4. I have conducted the inquest after 3.20 p.m.. AS per Sankarsan Mohapatra he had heard that a green coconut from the bus fell on the head of the deceased and so the accident took place. My investigation is not directed to know about the person from whom sankarsan Mohapatra got information about the said throwing of coconut from the bus. 5. I have examined one Manorajan Mohapatra in this He has stated before me the said deceased succumbed to his injuries by a road accident and not due to throwing of road accident. 6. I have mentioned in my CD that I have investigated Satyabadi P.S Case No.46 dated 21.3.2008 The said case was registered U/ss.279/337/338 I.P.C. It is a fact that that all the witnesses examined by me have stated that the said deceased died in a road accident. None have stated that due to throwing of coconut the deceased died.” 6.2. A further submission was made that since P.W. 1 who happens to the wife of the deceased was not an occurrence witness, her statement that the deceased died due to throwing of a green coconut even if made, cannot be accepted. 6.3. It is further contended that since the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted and the driver of the offending vehicle has been made as an accused, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr., no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation by holding the Appellant Page 5 of 8 // 6 // liable to pay the same. Hon’ble Apex Court in the said Judgment in Para 4, has held as follows:- “It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 6.4. It is also contended that taking into account the ITR submitted by the Claimants so exhibited vide Ext. 12 to 12(b), the Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,66,122/- after deducting the income tax as due and admissible. 6.5. However, while supporting the impugned award, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents contended that if this Court will award compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest @ 6%, the Claimants-Respondents will have no further grievance. 6.6. It is however contended that since Claimant-Respondent No. 4 has died in the meantime during pendency of the appeal on 11.08.2023, the share as due and admissible to Respondent No. 4 be shared in favour of Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 proportionately in terms of the judgment dtd.11.09.2018. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 7. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.11.09.2018, held the Claimants- Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the share of Respondent No. 4 in favour of Claimants- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 proportionately in terms of Judgment dtd.11.09.2018 along with their own share. 8.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 8.2. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any from the Registry on proper identification. Page 7 of 8 // 8 //
Decision
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd April, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-May-2025 12:53:43 Page 8 of 8