The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 National Insurance Company Limited, Cuttack …… Petitioner -Versus- Bhagabati Singh & Others ….. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate For Opposite Parties : None CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 08.05.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.K. Mishra, J. Though the matter is listed under the heading “For Orders”, regarding valid service of notice on Opposite Parties, on the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal as despite valid service of notice, the claimants, those who have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and the owner of the vehicle, who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.5, so also one of the co-claimants, who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.4, on whom notice is deemed to be sufficient in view of the judgment of the apex Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 630 (M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand), go unrepresented. 2. The Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the 1st M.A.C.T.-Cum- District Judge, Balasore in M.A.C. No.121 of 2021, vide which the petition dated 03.11.2023 filed by the Petitioner- Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) to summon the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for his examination was rejected on the ground that such petition filed by the Petitioner-Insurance Company does not deserve any merit. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The brief background facts, which led to filing of the present Writ Petition, as alleged by the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4, who are claimants before the Court below, are that on 24.03.2021 at about 12.30 P.M., while the deceased- Hadibandhu Singh was returning from Balasore towards Soro in a Honda Activa Scooter bearing Regd. No.OD-22E-7029, at that time a Tanker bearing Regd. No.RJ-47GA-1764 coming from his backside in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which the W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 2 of 21 deceased-Hadibandhu Singh sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to F.M. Medical College & Hospital, Balasore, where the injured succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition has been filed by the wife, sons and daughter of the deceased claiming compensation before the Court below. 4. After receiving notice from the Claims Tribunal, the Petitioner Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement disputing the alleged accident so also its liability, followed by a petition dated 03.11.2023 to summon the I.O. to adduce evidence in M.A.C. No.121 of 2021. To justify the said prayer, a ground was taken to the effect that there are serious discrepancies in the pleadings of the claimants in the claim petition and in the evidence on record as to the cause and manner of accident and liability of the Petitioner-Insurance Company so also alleged involvement of the I.O. to make a claim against the Petitioner-Insurance Company, who is the Insurer of the offending vehicle (Tanker) bearing Regd. No.RJ- 47GA-1764. On filing of such petition, the case was posted to 07.11.2023 for filing Objection and hearing on the petition dated 03.11.2023 filed by the Insurance Company (Present W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 3 of 21 Petitioner). Though no written objection was filed in response to the said petition, the Court below, after hearing both the sides, rejected the said petition on the very same day taking a view therein that the I.O. is not at all required to be examined in the said case. Hence, this Writ Petition. 5.
Decision
To substantiate the prayer made in the Writ Petition, Mr. Mahali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Insurance Company, relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 381 so also various provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shortly, the Act, 1988, submitted that in view of the stand taken in the written statement by the Petitioner and the grounds taken in the petition, which was rejected, so also the legal provisions under the Act, 1988 and the ratio decided in Gohar Mohammed (supra), the Court below ought to have allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner-Insurance Company, instead of rejecting the same on the ground that the I.O. is not required to be examined in the said case and the same will allegedly cause delay in adjudication of the case on merit. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 4 of 21 6. Mr. Mahali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the accident occurred on 24.03.2021 and then the provisions of Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was in vogue. In terms of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act, 1988, as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under the said provision is completed by a Police Officer, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof to the concerned Insurer, and where a copy is made available to the Owner, he shall also, within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to the concerned Claims Tribunal and Insurer. But, in the present case, the I.O. did not act in terms of the provisions enshrined under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act, 1988. That apart, the Petitioner managed to get the charge sheet against the driver of the Tanker taking police into confidence as the insurance policy of the Honda Activa Scooter does not cover the risk of the Driver. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 5 of 21 7. Mr. Mahali further submitted that since his client disputed the alleged liability on the said ground, the Tribunal ought to have summoned the I.O. at the cost of his client for examination, as was rightly prayed before it by filing an application to the said effect indicating therein the reasons to justify such prayer. He further submitted, the Court below failed to appreciate the legal provisions which the I.O. failed to follow so also settled position of law and rejected such application in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, even though no written objection was filed opposing to such prayer made by his client. 8. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it would be apt to extract below Section 158 of the Act, 1988, which was in vogue at the time of accident. “158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases. - (1) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by a police officer in uniform authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce - (a) the certificate of insurance; (b) the certificate of registration; (c) the driving licence; and (d) in the case of a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56, and the permit, relating to the use of the vehicle. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 6 of 21 (2) If, where owing to the presence of a motor vehicle in a public place an accident occurs involving death or bodily injury to another person, the driver of the vehicle does not at that time produce the certificates, driving licence and permit referred to in sub-section (1) to a police officer, he shall produce the said certificates, licence and permit at the police station at which he makes the report required by section 134. (3) No person shall be liable to conviction under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) by reason only of the failure to produce the certificate of insurance if, within seven days from the date on which its production was required under sub-section (1), or as the case may be, from the date of occurrence of the accident, he produces the certificate at such police station as may have been specified by him to the police officer who required its production or, as the case may be, to the police officer at the site of the accident or to the officer-in-charge of the police station at which he reported the accident: Provided that except to such extent and with such modifications as may be prescribed, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to the driver of a transport vehicle. (4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a police officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government to give for the purpose of determining whether the vehicle was or was not being driven in contravention of section 146 and on any occasion when the driver was required under this section to produce the certificate of insurance. insurance" means produce (5) In this section, the expression "produce the for certificate of examination the relevant certificate of insurance or such other evidence as may be prescribed to prove that the vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 146. (6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the office incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 7 of 21 copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.” (Emphasis supplied) Apart from the same, Sections 133 and 134 of the Act, 1988, being relevant, are also extracted below for ready reference: “133. Duty of owner of motor vehicle to give information.- The owner of a motor vehicle, the driver or conductor of which is accused of any offence under this Act shall, on the demand of any police officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government, give all information regarding the name and address of, and the licence held by, the driver or conductor which is in his possession or could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by him.” “ 134. Duty of driver in case of accident any injury to a person.- When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall- (a) unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, [by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural injured person or his the formalities], unless guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise; (b) give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence, including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 8 of 21 (c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely:- (i) insurance policy number and period of its validity; (ii) date, time and place of accident; (iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident; (iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.” 9. Mr. Mahali, relying on the judgment of the apex Court reported in 2021 (2) T.A.C. 353 (S.C) (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs. Union of India & others), further submitted that the apex Court in the said judgment gave a direction that the jurisdictional police station shall report the accident under Section 158(6) of the Act (Section 159 post 2019 Amendment) to the Tribunal and the Insurer within first 48 hours either over email or through a dedicated website. It was further held that police shall collect the documents relevant to the accident for computation of compensation and shall verify the information and documents which shall form part of the report. The Police shall report to the Tribunal and the Insurer within three months. Similarly, the claimants may also be permitted to email the application for compensation with supporting documents, under Section 166 to the Tribunal and the Insurer within the same time. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 9 of 21 Paragraph 2 of the said judgment, being relevant, is extracted below for ready reference: “2. It is now agreed as per Table I of the note submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the following agreed directions can be issued: A. Accident Information Report- The jurisdictional police station shall report the accident under Section 158(6) of the Act (Section 159 post 2019 Amendment) (hereinafter “the report”) to the Tribunal and insurer within first 48 hours either over email or a dedicated website. to relevant the accident and B. Detailed Accident Report- Police shall collect the documents for computation of compensation and shall verify the information and documents. These documents shall form part of the report. It shall email the report to the Tribunal and the insurer within three months. Similarly the claimants may also be permitted to email compensation with supporting documents, under Section 166 to the Tribunal and the insurer within the same time. the application for C. The Tribunal shall issue summons along with the report or the application for compensation, as the case may be, to the insurer by email. shall insurer D. The for settlement/response to the report or the application for claim to the Tribunal along with proof of service on the claimants. email their offer E. After passing the award, the Tribunal shall email an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer. F. The insurer shall satisfy the award by depositing the awarded amount into a bank account maintained by the Tribunal by RTGS or NEFT. For this purpose the Tribunal shall maintain a bank account and record the relevant account details along with the directions for payment to the insurer in the award itself. G. Each Tribunal shall create an email-ID peculiar to its jurisdiction for receiving the emails from the police and the insurer as mentioned above. Similarly, all W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 10 of 21 insurer throughout India shall also create an email-ID peculiar to the jurisdiction of each claim Tribunal. These email-IDs would be prominently displayed at Tribunal, the police stations and the office of the insurers for the benefit of the claimants. Similarly, these email-IDs shall also be prominently displayed on the website maintained by the Tribunal and the insurer. H. Insurers shall appoint nodal officers for each Tribunal and provide their contact details, phone and mobile phone numbers, and email address to Director Generals of State Police and the Tribunals.” 10. Mr. Mahali further submitted that in view of the said settled position of law, since the guidelines fixed by the apex Court have not been followed by the I.O. in the present case, rightly the Petitioner-Insurance Company moved an application to summon the I.O., which was illegally rejected by the Court below. He further submitted that the prayer made in the Writ Petition is covered by the recent judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.36138 of 2023. 11. As is revealed from the written statement filed by the Petitioner-Insurance Company before the Court below in M.A.C. No.121 of 2021, as at Annexure-2, apart from disputing various facts and figures of the claim petition, in Paragraph Nos.9 & 10 of the written statement, the Petitioner- Insurance Company has also disputed about the occurrence W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 11 of 21 of the alleged accident and involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-47GA-1764 (Tanker) so also the said claim case to be a collusive one and various irregularities committed by the I.O. while registering the F.I.R. and submission of investigation report and steps to be taken in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1988. That apart, in para- 10 of the Written Statement, a specific stand has been taken that since Insurance Policy of the Honda Activa Scooter does not cover the risk of the driver of the said vehicle, the Petitioners/Claimants have managed to get charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.RJ-47GA- 1764 (Tanker) taking the police into confidence, so that they can avail the compensation from the Insurer of the said vehicle. It is further revealed from the petition dated 03.11.2023 that such a stand was taken by the Petitioner before the Claims Tribunal to justify its prayer to summon the concerned I.O. for his examination/cross-examination. Relevant portion of the petition dated 03.11.2023 is extracted below: “Since the insurance policy of the said Honda Activa Scooter does not cover the risk of the driver of the said vehicle the petitioners have managed to get the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.RJ-47GA-1764 (Tanker) taking police into W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 12 of 21 confidence, so that the petitioners can avail the compensation from the insurers of the said tanker knocking the door of the justice. Hence, the O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation for the death of the deceased Hadibandhu Singh and this case may be dismissed against this O.P. and to substantiate the same the O.P. No.2 want to examine the then investigating officer of Khantapada P.S. Case No.94 dt. 24.03.2021. Hrudaya Madhab Das Pattanayak. ASI of Police for efficacious adjudication of this case.” 12. In Gohar Mohammed (supra), so far as claim cases arising out of road accidents, the apex Court gave the following directions. “62. Accordingly, this appeal is decided with the following directions: i) The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue of liability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the High Court and MACT. ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by use of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall take steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act. iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall take recourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and submit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The IAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims to the Tribunal within compliance of the provisions of the Rules. limit subject time iv) The registering officer is duty bound to verify the registration of the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle, permit and other ancillary issues and submit the report in coordination to the police officer before the Claims Tribunal. in the Rules, shall either be v) The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in vernacular language or in English language, as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules. The Investigating Officer shall inform the victim(s)/legal representative(s), driver(s), owner W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 13 of 21 insurance companies (s), other stakeholders with respect to the action taken following the M.V. Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce the witnesses on the date, so fixed by the Tribunal. and vi) For the purpose to carry out the direction No. (iii), distribution of police stations attaching them with the Claim Tribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the police stations to the Claim Tribunals shall be issued by the Registrar General of the High Courts from time to time, if not already issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules. is required to comply with vii) In view of the M.V. Amendment Act and Rules, as discussed hereinabove, the role of the Investigating Officer is very important. the He provisions of the Rules within the time limit, as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effective implementation of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required to be deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases. Therefore, we direct that the Chief Secretary/Director General of Police in each and every State/Union Territory shall develop a specialized unit in every police station or at town level and post the trained police personnel to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, within a period of three months from the date of this order. viii) On receiving FAR from the police station, the Claims Tribunal shall register such FAR as Miscellaneous Application. On filing the IAR and DAR by the Investigating Officer in connection with the said FAR, it shall be attached with the same Miscellaneous Application. The Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in the said application to carry out the purpose of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules, as discussed above. ix) The Claim Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves with the offer of the Designated Officer of the insurance company with an intent to award just and reasonable compensation. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 14 of 21 After recording such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Amendment Act, subject to consent by the claimant(s). If the claimant(s) is not ready to accept the same, the date be fixed for hearing and affording an opportunity to produce the seeking other documents and enhancement, the petition be decided. In the said event, the said enquiry shall be limited only to the extent of the enhancement of compensation, shifting onus on the claimant(s). evidence x) The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the amended Rules. The appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed the Designated Officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall be immediately notified and modified orders be also notified time to time to all the police stations/stakeholders. in Rule 24 and xi) If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164 or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, on receiving the information, the Miscellaneous Application registered under Section 149 shall be sent to the Claims Tribunal where the application under Section 164 or 166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal. in In or the the case claimant(s) xii) legal representative(s) of the deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. It is made clear here that the claimant(s) are not required to apply before this Court seeking transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court. territorial W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 15 of 21 of xiii) If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or 166 of the M.V. Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are directed to join Nodal Officer/Designated Officer the insurance company as respondents in the claim petition as proper party of the place of accident where the FIR has been registered by the police station. Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunal specifying the recourse as taken under Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act. xiv) Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are to sensitize all requested stakeholders as early as possible with respect to the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the M.V. Amendment Act and the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the mandate of law. insurance company, xv) For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the liability by the the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidence through Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by the insurance company. xvi) The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to develop a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate the stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of M.V. Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any technical agency and be notified to public at large.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. As held in Gohar Mohammed (supra), if the Insurance Company disputes its liability, the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidence through the Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of such Local Commissioner shall be borne by the Insurance Company. However, in the present W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 16 of 21 case, apart from disputing its liability not only in the Written Statement, a stand has been taken as to connivance of the Petitioner/Claimants with the I.O. to manage to get the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle Regd. No.RJ- 47GA-1764 (Tanker) of which the Petitioner is the Insurance Company but also the said fact was also reiterated in the petition dated 03.11.2023 which has been extracted above. However, the Claims Tribunal, though observed vide the impugned order that it is settled position of law that any witness can be examined at any stage of proceeding if his evidence is essential for just and effective adjudication of dispute and the party applying the Court for issuance of summons to the witness, must satisfy the Court that the evidence of the witness is highly essential for effective adjudication of the dispute, or else, the application filed by the party is liable to be rejected, but while rejecting the said petition of the Petitioner-Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal observed as follows: “Now, the question arises, whether in this factual background examination of the IO is essential to adjudicate the issue involved in the present claim application. There is no dispute at bar that the IO is the post occurrence witness, who visited the spot much after the accident. Therefore, he cannot have any direct knowledge with regard to the cause and W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 17 of 21 manner of the accident. The investigation of the IO is based on the statement of the eyewitness to the occurrence and other witnesses. Only the witnesses examined by the IO can prove the factum of the accident. But the IO whom the OP No.2 wants to examine on its behalf being the post occurrence witness cannot say how, when and where the accident in question took place and his evidence with regard to the cause and manner of accident is only hearsay evidence. Therefore, on the basis of such hearsay evidence, the issue involved in the present claim application cannot be effectively adjudication. The claim application was filed before this Tribunal in the year 2021 which is subjudice till now. After two years of filing the claim application, the claimants are unable to get their claim application adjudicated for getting their such dues. circumstance the IO would be summoned for his examination on behalf of the OP No.2, the claim application would be further delayed and the claimants would be harassed in getting their legitimate dues. legitimate under If It is settled position of law that any witness can be examined at any stage of proceeding if his evidence is essential for just and effective adjudication of dispute. The party applying the Court for issuance of summons to the witness, must satisfy the Court that the evidence of the witness is highly essential for effective adjudication of the dispute, or else, the application filed by the party is liable for rejection. In the present case the OP No.2 could not satisfy the Court as to how the evidence of the IO is essential for deciding the crux of the dispute. So, in absence of any satisfactory material, the IO of this case cannot be summoned to appear before this Tribunal to adduce evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. From the above, it is well evident that the Claims Tribunal failed to take note of the grounds agitated before it justifying the prayer to summon the I.O. for his examination/cross-examination by the Petitioner-Insurance W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 18 of 21 Company. It misread the petition filed by the Petitioner- Insurance Company and erroneously observed vide the impugned order that the I.O. being post occurrence witness, who visited the spot much after the accident, cannot have any direct knowledge with regard to the cause and manner of the accident and only the witnesses examined by the I.O. can prove the factum of the accident and his evidence with regard to cause and manner of accident is only hearsay evidence, basing on which the issue involved in the said claim application cannot be effectively adjudicated. That apart, the Claims Tribunal also rejected the application on the plea that the matter is pending for about two years and if the I.O. would be summoned for his examination on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, the claim application would be further delayed and the Claimants would be harassed in getting their legitimate dues. The said reason is also contrary to its own observation made vide the impugned order, vide which the Court below observed that the party can apply to the Court for summoning a witness at any stage and must satisfy the Court that the evidence of the witness is highly essential for effective adjudication of the dispute. W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 19 of 21 15. In view of the facts as detailed above, the reasons assigned in the petition filed by the Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below), the legal provisions extracted above and the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the application of the present Petitioner to summon the I.O., as prayed for and the impugned order deserves interference. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in M.A.C. No.121 of 2021 is set aside. 16. The Court below is directed to allow the petition of the Petitioner Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) and summon the concerned I.O. through Special Messenger at the cost of the Petitioner Insurance Company and proceed further in accordance with law and conclude the said proceeding at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 17. Needless to mention here that the concerned I.O., who’s name finds place in the prayer portion of the Petition dated 03.11.2023, being summoned, shall cooperate with the Claims Tribunal and remain present on the date fixed with W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 20 of 21 relevant documents, if any, for his examination. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the Claims Tribunal for conclusion of the proceeding within the stipulated time frame, as observed above. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost. 19. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. …….…..……………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 8th May, 2024 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 15-May-2024 10:22:51 W.P.(C) No.42401 of 2023 Page 21 of 21