The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.488 of 2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant Mr. S.A. Ali, Advocate -versus- Lekhan Samantaray and Others ….
Legal Reasoning
Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1 to 4 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Company challenging Judgment dtd.27.01.2020 so passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-4th MACT, Puri in MAC Case No.139-48 of 2010-2006. Vide the said Judgment, while allowing the claim application filed by the Claimants-Respondents held the Appellant-Company liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,95,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. // 2 // 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that accident took place on 01.03.2004 and P.W. 2 who happens to be the informant, lodged the FIR by implicating the Vehicle No.OR-13-A-4124. But it is contended that while filing the charge-sheet basing on the statement of the witnesses so examined by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-02-W-9192 was charge-sheeted. 4.1. It is contended that since the vehicle reflected in the FIR was not charge-sheeted and basing on the statement of the witnesses so recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Vehicle No.OR-02-W-9192 was charge-sheeted, which was never insured with the Appellant-Company, appellant is not liable to pay the compensation so assessed. 4.2. It is however fairly contended that other vehicle which was reflected in the FIR bearing Regd. No. OR-13- A-4124 was duly insured with the appellant-company and the accident occurred during the period involved. 5. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other hand contended that after the accident took place on 01.03.2004, FIR was lodged by implicating Vehicle No. OR-13-A-4124 by the informant who happens to be the P.W. 2. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 5.1. It is contended that P.W. 2 in his evidence clearly admits the contents of the FIR and the same has not been controverted by the appellant-company during his cross-examination. It is contended that on the face of the written report submitted by the informant-P.W. 2 and his evidence which was never controverted, the other vehicle could not have been charge-sheeted basing on the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that in view of the statement of P.W. 2 who happens to be the informant and the contents of the FIR wherein Vehicle No. OR-13- A-4124 has been clearly implicated, no illegality of irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Chamundeswari and Others, reported in 2021 (4) T.A.C. 367 (S.C.). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-8 of the judgment has held as follows:- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW–1 as well as PW–3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW–1 & PW–3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye– witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Information Report. In the judgment, relied on by the appellant’s counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others1, this Court has held that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2, this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under Road Regulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.” 5.3. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Mataji Bewa and Others Vrs. Hemanta Kumar Jena and Anr., reported in 1994 (1) T.A.C. 413. This Court in Para-6 of the judgment has held as follows:- “……….The sole basis for the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion is the contents of a charge-sheet filed in the criminal case. The contents of a charge-sheet cannot possibly be treated as an evidence in the claim proceedings. The Tribunal obviously committed gross error of law in relying upon the said charge-sheet to come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the truck as a passenger. On the other hand, the positive evidence of the claimants that the deceased was a pedestrian and the truck came and knocked him down has not been impeached in any manner by way of cross- examination. There was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to ignore that evidence of the claimants. In the aforesaid premises, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling on the truck cannot be sustained and the said finding is accordingly set aside. On the evidence on record, it must be held that the deceased was a pedestrian and while going on the road, the offending truck came and knocked him down.” Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the accident which took place on 01.03.2004, FIR was lodged by the informant who happens to be P.W. 2 in the present case. It is not disputed that in the FIR the Vehicle No. was indicated as OR-13-A-4124. However, basing on the statement of the witnesses so recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the Vehicle No.OR-02-W-9192 was charge- sheeted. 6.1. On the face of the written report submitted by the informant-P.W. 2 and his evidence recorded before the Tribunal which has remained uncontroverted placing reliance on the cited decision, it is the view of this Court that Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim by holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award and dismiss the appeal accordingly. 7. The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2025 11:07:13 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5