JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.847 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Munindra Kumar Das …. Appellant -versus- 1. Sk. Abdul Kadir 2. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B. Singh, Advocate (R-1) Mr.S. Nayak, Advocate (R-2) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing & Judgment : 19.08.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-
Legal Reasoning
Claimant and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Appellant–Claimant assailing the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T, Balasore in MAC No.106/283 of 2009/2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.72,000/- to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. from 24.12.2005 within a period of three months, failing which, the amount shall carry Page 1 of 5 interest at the rate of 12% per annum, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount by saddling the liability upon the Insurance Company instead of the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The case of the Claimant is that on 28.9.2005 he along with his wife was going in the motor cycle bearing registration number OR-01C-6679 from Chasakhanda to Balasaore. The offending tractor bearing registration number OR-01D-5229 coming from opposite direction dashed against his motor cycle near Baghajatin turning on N.H.60 as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. As such claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. In such claim application, the owner of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the claim application denying his liability on the ground that the vehicle was validly insured with the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company vide policy No.345700/2005/1713 from 09.12.2004 to 08.12.2005 covering the date of accident. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company was Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its written statement opposing the claim. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed; “1. Whether there is any cause of action and is the case maintainable? 2.Whether the petitioner met with accident and sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Page 2 of 5 the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-01D-5229 (Tractor) on 28.9.2005 at turning about 11 A.M near Baghajatin Chasakhand on N.H. 60? 3. Whether the driver alleged to have been driving the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident ? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation and if so from whom and to what extent ?” In order to substantiate his stand, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and thirteen documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 13. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company On consideration of the materials on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.72,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. from 24.12.2005 within a period of three months, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum and saddled the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, Mr. Mishra submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law in disbelieving the evidence of the Claimant as well as the written statement of the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle in question was validly insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No.345700/2005/1713 and the same was valid from 9.12.2004 till 8.12.2005 covering the date of accident. Hence, the impugned Page 3 of 5 award is liable to be set aside by saddling the liability on the Insurance Company and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced. He further submits that the learned Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the Claimant and came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle had no valid insurance and saddled the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the owner of the offending vehicle had specifically admitted in his written statement that there was a valid policy reflecting the policy number, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and liability should be saddled with the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has echoed such submission. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes such submission, inter alia, on the ground that if the impugned judgment is evaluated on the touchstone of the doctrine of just compensation, the same does not merit any interference. 8. Considering the facts and the submissions made, this Court is of the considered view that there was a valid policy at the time of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle has specifically admitted in his written statement that there was a valid policy. He has also produced the copy of the policy before this Court and the said document was not objected by any of the parties. As such the liability saddled upon the owner of the offending vehicle is patently erroneous. Hence, the Page 4 of 5 same is set aside. The Insurance Company is held liable to pay such compensation. 9. On a conspectus of the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.72,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- along with 7% interest per annum from the date of application i.e. from 24.12.2005 would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Insurance Company, Respondent No.2, is directed to deposit a compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from 24.12.2005 till its actual payment within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of this Judgment. 10. The direction to pay further interest at the rate of 12% in default is set aside. 11. Court fees shall be payable by the Claimant as per Rules. 12. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. No costs. (V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Ayesha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Sep-2025 19:18:23 Page 5 of 5