The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.839 OF 2023 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Mr. R.C. Sahoo 1, Advocate Binita Topno & Ors. -versus- …. Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7) Mr. R.R. Das Nayak, Advocate (Respondent No. 8) Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 07.03.2025 Order No. 11. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.C. Sahoo 1, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company, Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. R.R. Das, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.02.12.2023 so passed by the Additional District Judge- cum-3rd MACT, Rourkela in MAC Case No. 173/2020. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.62,87,175/- 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 appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal without having any // 2 // documentary evidence only relying on the ITR so filed, held the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,15,931/-, though basing on the materials available it should have been taken as Rs.3,12,390/-. It is also contended that the Tribunal while awarding compensation wrongly awarded interest on the amount awarded towards future prospect, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. It is also contended that since Owner-Respondent No. 8 (Opp. Party No. 1 before the Tribunal) failed to produce valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal passed an order on 17.01.2023 to the following effect:- “Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as counsels for the Ops are present. Heard on the petition dated 17.12.2022 filed on behalf of the OP No.2 The counsel for the Op No 2 submitted that the OP No.1 be directed to file original permit and Fitness of the alleged offending Tractor bearing No.OD-14K-0455. The counsel for the OP No. 1 opposes the petition as not maintainable but has not filed a written objection. Considering the petition dated 12.09.2022 and the submission of the OPs, it is noticed that the OP No. I has not whispered about possession the original permit and Fitness although the vehicle is insured in his name but he has merely challenged the petition as not maintainable which is not proper. Rather the perusal of the permit is essential to scrutinize the policy terms and conditions and also to fix liability on the Ops. Since the OP No.1 doesn't reveal a single word about the possession of a valid permit & fitness of the vehicle as on the date of accident, an adverse inference is to be drawn to the effect that the vehicle of OP No.1 had no valid permit & fitness to ply on the road at the relevant time. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 filed a memo stating not to adduce further evidence in this case. In view of the memo the evidence from the side of OP No.1 is closed. Put up on 8-02-23 for evidence of OP No 2.” Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.2. It is contended that on the face of such order passed on 17.01.2023 while disposing the claim application, no right of recovery was allowed as against Respondent No. 8. 4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel for the Appellant- Company contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the aforesaid contentions so raised by the Appellant, the compensation amount would have been on the lower side and right of recovery should have been allowed as against Owner/Respondent No. 8. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment needs interference of this Court. 5. Mr. R.R. Das Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Owner- Respondent No. 8 on the other hand contended that the vehicle was having valid permit and fitness, but it could not be filed before the Tribunal on the face of such order passed on 17.01.2023. If given an opportunity, the same can be produced. 6. Even though Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents supported the impugned Judgment, but in course of hearing contended that the Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No. 8 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // because of non-production of permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, which violation policy condition. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is inclined to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing the claim application till its realization and allow right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 8. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant- Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the 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 and during pendency of the appeal, since Claimant-Respondent No. 7 has died, the Tribunal shall disburse the share as due and admissible to Claimant-Respondent No. 7 and the individual share of other Claimants proportionately in favour of Claimant/Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 except Respondent No. 7 in terms of the Judgment passed on 24.04.2023. 8.1. 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.60,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 8.2. It is however observed that if any such application is moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No. 8, the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in Page 4 of 5 // 5 // accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 8. 8.3. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any from the Registry on proper identification. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Mar-2025 18:40:19 Page 5 of 5