The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.583 OF 2024 From the Judgment/Order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge –cum- 3rd MACT, Deogarh in MAC Case No.64 of 2015-18 of 2017. Magma HDI G.I. Co. Ltd. :::: Appellant -:: VERSUS ::- Ramakanta Biswal & Anr. :::: Respondents
Legal Reasoning
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.” 5.1. It is accordingly contended that even though in the F.I.R a different story was provided, but in view of the evidence led, the same has to prevail over the F.I.R. story and the charge sheet filed accordingly. 5.2. However, in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent contended that Claimant-Respondent will be fully satisfied, if this Court allows compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimant- Respondent to the discretion of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.22.01.2024 is inclined to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing the application till its realization. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the Page 5 of 6 // 6 // date of filing of the claim application till its realization within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent in terms of the Judgment passed on 22.01.2024. 7.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 7.2. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification.
Arguments
For Appellant :::: Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate (Appellant-Company) For Respondent :::: Mr. G.P. Jena, Advocate (Claimant-Respondent) ……… PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 26.09.2024:: Date of Judgment- 26.09.2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P.Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. G.P. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.22.01.2024 so passed by the Addl. District Judge- cum-3rd MACT, Deogarh in MAC Case No. 64 of 2015-18 of 2017. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.10,01,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Tribunal committed wrong in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car on the face of the information provided in the F.I.R. and the finding of the I.O. in the final form. 4.1. It is contended that while submitting the final form, the I.O. clearly indicated that due to rash and negligent driving of an unknown vehicle, which dashed in front of the car, the accident since occurred, the Claimant-Respondent is not eligible to get any compensation. 4.2. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2007) AIR SCW 3591. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 14 & 15 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, should not arise. 15. A part objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at an appropriate time. If the objection is not Page 2 of 6 // 3 // raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and where- for consent of the other party has been obtained. the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. In Hukam Singh (supra), the law as correctly been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stating; "8. Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ram Partap had produced only his former deposition and gave no evidence in Court which could be considered by the Additional District Judge, I am afraid there is no merit in this connection. The Trial Court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D.1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. But he did not at all have this evidence before this mind. It was not a case of inadmissible evidence either. No doubt the procedure adopted by the Trial Court in letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of Ram Partap made in the criminal proceedings and allowing the same to be proved by Ram Partap himself was not correct and he should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement the parties in order to save time did not object to the previous deposition being proved by Ram Partap himself who was only cross- examined. It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in Court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge letter either in the same Court or in a Court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to approbate and reprobate". Thus in view of the above, since the claimant himself filed the FIR and charge sheet which goes to show that it is driver of the unknown truck who is solely responsible for the accident and despite of through search, the vehicle could not be traced for which the police after investigation submitted Final Report as "NO CLUE U/s.279/337/338 IPC" and therefore the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.” Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned Judgment needs interference of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents on the other hand while supporting the impugned Judgment, contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2021 (4) TAC 367 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors., if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the F.I.R., the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of F.I.R.. The view expressed by the Apex Court in Para 8 of the Judgment reads 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 and 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. Information Report. In the judgment, relied on by the appellant's Counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others (supra), 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 Limited (supra), this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was Page 4 of 6 // 5 //
Decision
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26th September, 2024/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Oct-2024 10:57:54 Page 6 of 6