The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.115 of 2019 D.M., ICICI Lombard G.I. Co. Ltd. … Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate -versus- Manjushree Sahu & Others … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.03.2025 19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard. 3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Dharamgarh in MAC No.24 of 2016. 4. It is contended that the deceased was riding the offending motor cycle and he has been charge sheeted as an accused by the police. It is accordingly contended that since the deceased was arrayed as an accused and charge sheeted, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 SC 3056 (Ningamma & Another vrs. United India Insurance Company Limited) the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraphs-16, 19 & 20 held as under: “16. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that the Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub- section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. xxx xxx xxx 19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear the MVA. on a reading of Section 163-A of Accordingly, the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA. representatives of legal the When we apply the said principle into the 20. facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to Page 2 of 4 the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the legal representatives of the deceased as provided in Section 166 of the MVA. The said provision specifically provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner of the property; or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. When an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provisions of Section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which, however, would be subject to the provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurance company liable to make the payment to the heirs. In this context reference could be made to relevant paras of Section 147 of the MVA which reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 4.1. It is also contended that relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court in MACA No.413 of 2013 vide order dated 21.10.2024 also took simile view by holding that the application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for Page 3 of 4 the appellant. However, it is contended that if this Court will be inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, then liberty be granted to the claimants/respondents to move the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission made by the parties and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited supra, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the claimants/respondents was not maintainable under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as the deceased was the rider of the offending vehicle and was charge sheeted. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Dharamgarh in MAC No.24 of 2016. While setting aside the impugned judgment, this Court allows the appeal. However, liberty is granted to the claimants/ respondents to move the appropriate forum for consideration of their grievance in accordance with law in which this Court is not expressing any opinion. The statutory deposit be refunded along with accrued interest if any on proper identification. 7. The MACA is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified amit Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Mar-2025 11:18:19 Page 4 of 4