BLE MR. JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing and Judgment
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1248 of 2015 In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Dulei Kishan …. Appellant -versus- 1. Kalpana Patra 2. Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing and Judgment : 30.06.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. The judgment dated 11.08.2015 passed by the learned 5th M.A.C.T, Rourkela in MAC Case No.283 of 2011 dismissing the claim application on the ground that the Appellant-Claimant had not adduced any oral Page 1 of 6 or documentary evidence to substantiate her claim, is assailed before this Court. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details the brief facts germane for just adjudication are stated as under: The Appellant-widow filed MAC Case No.283 of 2011 on account of the death of her daughter Fulmani Kishan in a vehicular accident on 02.08.2011 caused by an Auto rickshaw bearing registration number OR-14D-6630 in which she was travelling as a passenger. It is stated that in the said accident Fulmani sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Bonai Hospital and later she succumbed to the same. Claiming that Fulmani was working as a daily labourer and was getting Rs.100/- per day as her wage, the Claimant filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs.3,84,000/-. The owner of the Auto rickshaw though received notice but did not appear. The Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) appeared and filed its written statement, inter alia, challenging the maintainability of the petition on the ground of non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “I. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in law ? II. Whether on 02.08.2011 at about 4.30 PM on NH-23 near Basudhi chowk there was a Page 2 of 6 road accident causing the death of the deceased and whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged offending Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.OR-14D-6630 ? III. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the claimed compensation from the Opposite Parties, if so, from whom and to what extent?” 4. In Paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal observed thus: “5. During trial, the Petitioner neither adduced any oral evidence nor proved any document, though sufficient opportunity were given to her. O.P No.2 also failed to adduce any evidence in its support. On perusal of the record, from the order sheets it appeared that the Advocate for the Petitioner instead of adducing evidence went on filing petitions for time again and again on some plea or the other. In spite of repeated direction, she could not get ready for hearing. Ultimately, her petition for time was rejected giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. But still she did not response. Hence ultimately the case of the Petitioner was closed. Later the OP-2 also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence its case…..” in support of Taking note of lack of evidence the matter was dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party No.2. Assailing the same, the present MACA has been filed, as noted. Page 3 of 6 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Mishra that the legislation in question is a benevolent one and while dismissing the claim application, learned Tribunal failed to take note of the same and also the fact that the Claimant was a widow. Hence, in the interest of justice and on the ground of equity, the matter ought to be remitted back for fresh adjudication. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Mahali submits that since the Claimant did not take any step in spite of repeated adjournments for adducing any evidence, learned Tribunal had no other alternative but to pass the impugned order. Hence, there was no fault on the part of the Insurance Company and even if the matter is remitted back, they should not be saddled with the burden of interest since admittedly no negligence can be attributed to the Insurance Company. 7. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant. 8. It needs no emphasis that the legislation in question is a benevolent one and it has been repeatedly laid down by the Apex Court that a pedantic approach ought not to be adopted in appreciating the lis in a motor accident claim as in a normal adversarial litigation. Page 4 of 6 As noted the Claimant is a widow and that ought to have weighed with the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the claim case but that aspect has been lost sight of. It is apt to note that the Claimant widow filed this MACA Case in 2015 and is still pursuing the matter. 9. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also merits consideration in view of the findings of the learned Tribunal that in spite of repeated opportunity Claimant had not adduced any evidence. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aide and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 28.07.2025 to receive further instruction. On the said date, notice shall be issued to the owner. Learned Tribunal is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months. While adjudicating the lis on merit, the question of delay shall be taken into account while quantifying the Page 5 of 6 compensation in accordance with the settled position of law. Learned counsels for the parties have assured this Court to cooperate for disposal of the matter. 11.
Decision
The MACA is accordingly disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th June, 2025/Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jul-2025 17:29:33 Page 6 of 6