JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1269 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. …. Appellant -versus- 1. Swadhin Meher 2.Prakash Chandra Naik …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.C. Sahoo, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate (R-1) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned advocate for the Appellant- Insurance Company and learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant. 2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T, Bargarh in M.A.C No.161/24 of 2009-16 awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in the case of Page 1 of 8 grievous injuries along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 11.11.2009, i.e. the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. 3. The brief facts of the case of the Claimant is that on 12.02.2014, the Claimant-Swadhin Meher was going to the football field by walking on the extreme left side of the road. The offending tractor bearing Registration number RJ-19-R-6587 and its Trolley bearing Registration number OR-17-C-1447 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the offending vehicle dashed against the Claimant as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. As such, claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition.
Legal Reasoning
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “ i) If the claim petition is maintainable ? ii) If the petitioner had sustained serious injuries and 50% permanent Loco-motor disability due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Regd. No.- R.J.-19-R-6587 and Trolley bearing Regd. No.- O.R.-17-C-1447 in Bijepur road on 12.02.2004 at about 4 p.m.? , Page 2 of 8 iii) If the petitioner is entitled to receive any compensation, if so, then to what extent and from whom ? , iv) If the petitioner is entitled to receive any other relief(s) ?” In order to substantiate his claim, Claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and documents were exhibited on his behalf as Exts.1 to 7/1. No witness was examined by the Insurance Company but documents were marked as Exts.A to C. Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Sahu that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record that it is the trolley which caused the accident. Hence, the same not having been insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, the present Appellant ought not to have been fastened with the liability. It is the further challenge of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that on the date of accident i.e. 12.2.2004 the offending tractor which is insured with the present Appellant Page 3 of 8 had not caused the accident. But the accident was on account of the trolley. Since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of alleged accident that ought to have weighed with the learned Tribunal in securing right of recovery of the Appellant- Insurance Company. It is further submitted that in the absence of any documentary evidence, awarding of the compensation on account of treatment and loss of amenities of life is based on surmises and conjectures. As such, the same is liable to be interfered with. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Claimant, Sri Sahu submitted that there is no error in consideration of the evidence on record by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the case at hand does not merit any interference. 6. On perusal of Ext.A which included the final form on which reliance was placed by the Appellant-Insurance Company as well, it is seen that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the loaded tractor in question. The injured examined himself as P.W.1. On close scrutiny of the deposition, it can be seen that he stood his ground that the accident in question which led to his disability was caused by the Page 4 of 8 tractor. There was even no suggestion given to P.W.1 that the accident was caused by the trolley as being submitted before this Court. It is apt to note that rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the Claimant. In the light of the same, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment that it is the tractor which has caused the accident. 7. Learned Tribunal has taken note of the disability certificate issued by the DHH, Bargarh Ext.6 showing 50% locomotor disability against the claim of Rs.7 lakhs towards compensation on all counts. Taking into account the disability, amenities of life including loss of marriage prospects awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on all the heads with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of application till the date of payment. No amount was awarded towards loss of monthly income, inter alia, on the ground that evidence in the said regard was not credible. 8. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence on record in awarding the compensation. In fact weighing the same on the altar of just compensation this Court finds that quantum of Page 5 of 8 compensation as awarded is reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 9. The driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is marked as Ext.B being produced by the Appellant-Insurance Company. In the charge sheet also, the same driving licence has been referred to. On a bare perusal of the said exhibit, the period of validity of the same is stated as under; “8. Period of Validity From 20.08.1986 to to 19.08.1991 20.02.2009” from 21.02.2004 and Admittedly the accident in question took place on 12.2.2004. Juxtaposing it with the period of validity as noted above on the date of accident i.e. on 12.2.2004 the driver of the offending tractor had no valid licence. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that from 20.08.1991 to 20.2.2004 the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, on an analysis of Ext.B, the details of the driving licence as furnished by the office of the Regional Transport Office, Sambalpur. In such view of the matter, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal ought to have granted the right of recovery. Page 6 of 8 In this context, this Court relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita and others vrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others1. 9-A. It may not be out of place to note here that learned Tribunal has noted regarding the discrepancy relating to the name of the owner of the offending vehicle. But came to the finding that irrespective of the name of the owner, the Appellant-Insurance Company is the common insurer. Hence, leave is granted to the Insurance Company to proceed against the owner of the offending vehicle as per its record. 10. In view of the discussion as above, this Court does not find any merit in the MACA. The same is accordingly disposed of giving right of recovery to the Appellant-Insurance Company as noted hereinabove. 11. Compensation in terms of the impugned award shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 12. Within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with 1 2025 INSC 867 Page 7 of 8 accrued interest shall be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper application.
Decision
13. The MACA is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Aug-2025 11:23:23 Page 8 of 8