The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.492 of 2023 ..... Appellants Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. Minakshi Kumura & Another -versus- Dambarudhar Kumura & Another ..... Respondents Mr. T.K. Dash, Adv,. (for Res. No.1) Ms. R. B. Pati, Adv. (for Respondent No.2) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 16.04.2025 Order No.5 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie view that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal should have been saddled on Respondent No.2 by allowing right of recovery as against Respondent No.1 Page 4 of 6. as Driving Licence of the accused driver was not produced. 8.1. Not only Taking into account the fact that no compensation has been allowed towards future prospect this Court considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants is inclined to enhance the compensation to Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 8.2. This Court accordingly directs Respondent No.2 to pay compensation amount of Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal payable from the date of application till its realisation and deposit the same before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This Court however allows right of recovery as against Respondent No.1 as the driving licence of the accused driver was never produced. 8.3. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the appellants-claimants proportionately in terms of the judgement passed on 04.04.2023. 8.4. It is further observed that if the Respondent-Company will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of Rs.17,50,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is so deposited. Page 5 of 6. 8.5. It is further observed that if any such application is moved by the Appellant-company to recover the amount from the owner-respondent No.1, the said Respondent shall be given due opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal and the application so filed be decided in accordance with law.
Arguments
2 . Heard Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. In spite of appearance, nobody is there on behalf of Respondent No.1 when the matter was taken up. 4. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the award passed by the learned First MACT-cum-District Judge, Deogarh in MAC Case No.18 of 2020. Vide the said order, the Tribunal while assessing the compensation at Rs.13,12,240/- along with interest payable @6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its Page 1 of 6. realisation and saddled the liability on the owner- Respondent No.1. 5. In support of the enhancement, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that while awarding the compensation, no compensation has been awarded towards future prospect. 5.1. It is contended that since driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was never seized or produced, the same should have been taken as a violation of the policy condition and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 (3) SCC 297 so followed by the Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and Others, 2018(3) SCC 800, the Tribunal should have directed Respondent No.2 to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner- Respondent No.1. 5.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram in Para-1 & 5 of the order has held as follows: 1.In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri found that the insured did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal absolved the insurer for that reason. The insurer was, however, directed to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant and to recover it from the owner of the offending motorcycle. The High Court dealt with three the claimant seeking appeals filed by enhancement of compensation, a second by the insurance company and the third by the owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle. The High Court held [Singh Ram v. Nirmala, FAO No. 3790 of 2012, order dated 28-3-2014 (P&H)] that in view of the decision of : one Page 2 of 6. in directing the this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] , the Tribunal insurer to pay the was correct compensation and to recover it from the owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle. The present appeal has been filed by the owner and driver. The only point which has been urged in support of the appeal is that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in fastening the liability on him by granting a right of recovery to the insurer. 5. Before we advert to the decision in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] a brief reference to the facts as they emerge from the decision of the Tribunal is necessary. Initially before the Tribunal the appellant produced a driving licence issued by the Motor Vehicles Department, Agra (Ext. R-1). The driving licence was found to be fake. The statement of the Senior Assistant in the office of the RTO, Agra was that Ext. R-1 had not been issued by the office. The Tribunal noted that the witness had proved the report (Ext. R-2) issued by the department and concluded that the licence was fake. Faced with this situation, the appellant attempted to prove that he held a valid driving licence issued by the licensing authority at Jagadhri to drive a motorcycle. The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellant for producing additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that even otherwise, the licence which was issued by the licensing authority, Jagadhri for a tractor and car was valid only until 29-8-2009. The accident took place on 22-3-2010. The licence was renewed on 28-11-2011 more than two years after it had expired. On these facts, the Tribunal observed that on the date of the accident, the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence nor was there any evidence to indicate that the licence was sought to be renewed as required in law, within 30 days of its expiry. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant did not hold a valid licence to drive a motorcycle. On insurer was absolved. The High Court has confirmed the direction of the Tribunal to pay and recover. these grounds, the 5.3. It is contended that since the deceased was an Govt. employee, future prospect to the extent of 50% should have been allowed by the Tribunal. It is also contended that had the Tribunal allowed the future Page 3 of 6. prospect to the extent of 50% the compensation amount should have been awarded at a higher side. 5.4. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that if compensation amount will be enhanced to Rs. 17,50,000/- along with interest as awarded, by the Tribunal appellants-claimants will have no grievance. 6. Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 Company on the other hand contended that since no Driving Licence was seized by the I.O in course of investigation, nor it was produced at any point of time by the Respondent No.1, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on Respondent No.1. It is further contended that if this Court is inclined to enhance the award, the same should also be saddled on Respondent No.1. 7. Since in spite of due appearance, nobody is appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, this Court is unable to know as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid licence or not. However, the fact remains that no such driving licence was ever produced before the Tribunal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Swaran singh so followed by the decision in the case of Singh Ram, this Court is of the
Decision
8.6. The M.A.C.A accordingly stands disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatoin of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Apr-2025 17:48:21 Page 6 of 6.