JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.45 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The B.M National Insurance Company Ltd. …. Appellant Mr. N.B. Das, Adv. -versus- Khiro Naik & others …. Respondents Mr. D. Mund, Adv. MACA No.1114 of 2015 Khiro Naik & another …. Appellants Mr. D. Mund, Adv. -versus- M. Sunita Rao & another …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. N.B. Das, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment : 21.03.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Since both the appeals have been filed assailing the award dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Page 1 of 7 1st M.A.C.T., Koraput at Jeypore in MAC Case No.10 of 2018, they are taken up together for disposal on the consent of the parties. 2. MACA No.1114 of 2015 has been filed by the Claimants for enhancement and MACA No.45 of 2016 is at the instance of the Insurance Company assailing the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details the brief facts germane for just adjudication are stated as under: Appellants in MACA No.1114 of 2015 as Claimants filed MAC Case No.10 of 2008 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs on account of unfortunate death of their son Dhobulu Naik in a motor vehicular accident on 22.7.2007. Before the learned Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle was impleaded as Opposite Party No.1 and the Insurer of the offending vehicle as Opposite Party No.2. It is apt to note here that Opposite Party No.2 has filed connected Appeal bearing MACA No.45 of 2016. Opposite Parties before the learned Tribunal filed their replies controverting the allegations. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1 owner did not participate in the proceeding since offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and was valid till 28.9.2007 and as such covers the date of accident i.e. 22.7.2007 and Page 2 of 7 took a stand that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnity. The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.2 resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground of policy violation inasmuch as passengers being carried in the mini truck and that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence. It was the further stand that this is the Opposite Party No.1-owner who is liable to pay because of the policy violations. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “I. Whether there was an accident as alleged and whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? II. Whether the driving licence of the driver and insurance of the offending vehicle were valid? III. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to get any relief/reliefs and is so to what extent and from whom?” To fortify their stand, the Claimants examined themselves and exhibited documents. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Certified copy of registration certificate and insurance policy were marked as Exts.A and B at the behest of the Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal on consideration of the issues held that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and the vehicle had a valid policy and while determining the Page 3 of 7 quantum learned Tribunal held that at the time of accident the deceased was a school going child and referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Syed Ibrahim and others, 2007 (4) TAC 385 SC and Kaushlya Devi vrs. Shri Kiram Arora and others, 2007 (3) TAC 16 (SC) quantified the compensation as Rs.1 lakhs with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. 4. As noted the Appellants who are Claimants before the learned Tribunal in MACA No.1114 of 2015 have sought for enhancement of compensation amount to the tune of 3,85,000/- and connected appeal MACA No.45 of 2016 was filed at the instance of the Insurance Company for setting aside the impugned award. 5. The grounds primarily taken by the Insurance Company were that the vehicle was a goods carrying commercial vehicle and as such is not authorized to carry any passenger either on hire or gratuitously. Even otherwise the award of compensation of Rs.1 lakh for a child of 9 years is exorbitant and the Insurance Company also took exception to the award of interest since the case was lingering for 7 years and the delay is not at all attributable to them. 6. As noted above no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company regarding policy Page 4 of 7 violation and on perusal of the record learned Tribunal has come to a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and on the date of accident the vehicle had insurance cover. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of the Appellant Insurance Company so as to warrant any interference with the impugned award. Hence, the MACA No.45 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed. 7. So far as enhancement in MACA No.1114 of 2015 as claimed is concerned, learned counsel for the Claimants has relied on the following judgments.