The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.438 OF 2020 From the Judgment/Order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No.250/547 of 2003. Basanta Kumari Pradhan & Anr. :::: Appellants -:: VERSUS ::- Sunil Ku. Parija & Anr. :::: Respondents For Appellants :::: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate (Claimants)
Legal Reasoning
For Respondents :::: Mr. N. Das, Advocate (Respondent No. 2) ……… PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 21.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment- 21.03.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants-Claimants and Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for Page 1 of 6 // 2 // Respondent No. 2. In spite of appearance nobody is there on behalf of Respondent No. 1 when the matter was called. 3. The present appeal has been filed challenging Judgment dtd.02.12.2019 so passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No. 250/547 of 2003. 4. It is contended that the Appellants-Claimants filed the aforesaid claim case under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act in respect of the accident caused by the offending vehicle on 06.10.2001, causing death of the deceased. 4.1. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that, basing on the F.I.R. lodged and after completion of the investigation, not only the offending vehicle which was insured with the Respondent No. 2-Company was charge-sheeted but also the driver of the offending vehicle was made an accused in the said case. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant also produced the photocopy of the charge-sheet in support of the aforesaid submission. 4.2. It is contended that since the offending vehicle was charge- sheeted and the driver of the offending vehicle was made as an Page 2 of 6 // 3 // accused, there was no occasion on the part of the Tribunal to disbelieve the claim of the Appellants. But by taking recourse to the disparity in the evidence laid, the Tribunal rejected the application. 4.3. It is also contended that since grant of compensation under the provisions of Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is a beneficial one, strict adherence to the rule of law is not required to be followed. In support of the same, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporaton & Anr. reported in 2019 (1) TAC 710 (S.C.). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 20 has held as follows:- “It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in e in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 4.3. It is also contended that since the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted and the driver of the offending vehicle has been made as an accused, in view of the recent Supreme Court decision, no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being negligently driven by the Bus driver. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. in Para 4, has held as follows:- “It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal has rejected the claim application illegally and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2-Company on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since the Tribunal after due appreciation of the evidence laid by the Parties has come to a conclusion that the claim Page 4 of 6 // 5 // application is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same with passing of a nil award, it requires no interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming grant of compensation in respect of the death of the deceased in a motor accident, which took place on 06.10.2001, the claim application was filed before the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the Parties that the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted and so also the driver of the offending vehicle was made an accused. On the face of such materials available before the Tribunal taking into account some disparity in the evidence laid, dismissed the application with passing of a nil award. 5.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the cited decisions, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which the claim application was dismissed is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court accordingly is inclined to quash Judgment dtd.02.12.2019 and remits the matter to the Tribunal to redecide the claim. While remitting the matter to the Tribunal, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of September, 2025 by giving due Page 5 of 6 // 6 // opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if there is no other legal impediment. Further evidence, if any, be also laid in support of the respective claim.
Decision
6. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st March, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Mar-2025 16:50:14 Page 6 of 6