The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.116 of 2022 The D.M. (Legal) M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Cuttack …. Appellant Mr. P. K. Mahali, Advocate -Versus- Subhendranath Dash & Another …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 20.02.2024 Order No. 03. 1. Instant appeal is at the behest of appellant Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 13th August, 2016 passed in MAC Case No.32 of 2016 by the learned Additional District Jude-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Kendrapara on the grounds stated therein. 2. Heard Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for claimant respondent No.1. 3. None appears for respondent No.2, namely, owner of the offending vehicle. 4. While considering the claim for compensation and disposing of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed at the instance of the claimant respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- payable to him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of such application i.e. 6th May 2016 till its realization. Page 1 of 4 5. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the death of the deceased, namely, mother of the claimant respondent No.1 has had no nexus with the injury she received during the accident, which has also taken place almost after a month and such death is not supported by any medical evidence and postmortem report, the fact which was the lost sight of by the learned Tribunal. Furthermore, it is submitted by Mr. Mahali that the offending vehicle was planted as it was not involved nor the driver of the vehicle in question, who is admittedly chargesheeted for offences under Sections(s) 337, 338 and 279 IPC and therefore, the learned Tribunal fell into serious error in allowing the compensation, hence, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No.1 would submit that the alleged accident took place, the fact which was accepted by the learned Tribunal and that apart, the deceased died some time after the accident and there has been a close proximity with cause of death with the injury, she sustained. It is also submitted that the alleged vehicle was involved and hence, therefore, its driver was chargesheeted. 7. 8. Gone through the impugned award dated 13th August, 2021. Admittedly, there has been no evidence with regard to cause of death. No postmortem report is available nor was it produced before the learned Tribunal. But then, the accident took place on 17th July, 2015 alleging involvement of the motor-cycle bearing registration No.OR-02BV-3007. Of course, there has been delay in lodging of the FIR. There is no denial to the fact that Page 2 of 4 respondent No.2 is the owner of the alleged motor-cycle. Furthermore, the materials on record suggest that one Bibin Bihari Behera was the rider of the motor-cycle as according to claimant respondent No.1 and he has been chargesheeted for the alleged accident. Since the death of the deceased has taken place some days after the accident, so, therefore, it contended by Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that the deceased has not died on account of the injury, she received. However, the deceased was admitted in hospital on 19th September, 2015 for Cranioplasty operation which was performed on 3rd October, 2015 and thereafter, she was discharged on 8th October, 2015. The death certificate stands marked as Ext.9 which shows that the deceased died on 20th November, 2015. The deceased having been discharged on 8th October, 2015 and barely within a month, she has died, the Court is not inclined to accept the claim of the appellant Insurance Company that there has been no nexus with the accident dated 17th July, 2015. In other words, the Court is not in favour of accepting the contention of the appellant Insurance Company rather is of the view that the deceased having died within a month from the date of discharge from the hospital, she most likely succumbed to the injury received during the incident in absence of any rebuttal evidence. Though, the chargesheet is filed, a copy of the same is marked as Ext.3, which shows that the driver of the offending motor-cycle was chargesheeted not for offence under Section 304-A IPC apparently for the reason that the death of the deceased did not occur immediately and died nearly four months later, the Court is also not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant Insurance Company on such ground to interfere with the compensation allowed in favour of the claimant respondent No.1. Page 3 of 4 9. Since the death of the deceased is not supported by postmortem report and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the Court is, however, of the view that the amount of compensation so determined and fixed at by the learned Tribunal should be reduced to Rs.4,00,000/- payable with interest as the same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 10 Accordingly, it is ordered. 11. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned award dated 13th August, 2021 in MAC Case No.32 of 2016 is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the appellant Insurance Company to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- payable along with interest @ 6% per annum within eight weeks from today. It is further directed that in the event the amount is deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, it shall immediately be released and disbursed in favour of the claimant respondent No.1 without fail. Furthermore, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company on proof of such deposit of compensation made and in the event, a requisition is received towards it. 12 Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 21-Feb-2024 19:55:19 Page 4 of 4