The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA Nos.1272 OF 2023 & 317 of 2024 MACA No. 1272 of 2023 From the Judgment/Order dated 30.08.2023 so passed by the learned Addl. District And Sessions Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Kuchinda, Sambalpur in MAC Case No.12 of 2022. Branch Manager, TATA AIG General :::: Appellant Insurance Company Ltd. -:: VERSUS ::- Khirodini Suhula & Ors. :::: Respondents For Appellant :::: Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate (Company) For Respondents :::: Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate (Respondent No. 5) ……… PRESENT :
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 17.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment- 17.03.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of a common Judgment, both are
Decision
heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents. 4. While MACA No. 1272 of 2023 has been filed by the Insurer challenging the award, MACA No. 317 of 2024 has been filed by the Claimants seeking enhancement of the award. 5. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dt.30.08.2023 in MAC No. 22 of 2022 allowed the claim of the Claimants by holding the Insurer liable to pay the compensation so assessed along with interest with right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent. 6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer contended that since the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a Pick-up van bearing Registration No. OD-15-C-7384, which has been clearly proved by the Insurer before the Tribunal by leading evidence in that regard through OPW 1, but without proper appreciation of such stand of the Insurer, the Tribunal held the Appellant liable to pay the compensation amount, with right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent. 6.1. It is contended that after coming into force of the M.V. Amended Act, 2019, which was notified on 01.04.2022, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation, if it is proved that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. It is contended that since the accident occurred on 18.04.2022 i.e. after the amendment was notified on 01.04.2022, in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 150 of the Amended M.V. Act, the Appellant could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment needs interference of this Court. 7. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants- Respondents on the other hand contended that since the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle and in course of his employment as a Labourer in the vehicle in question, he succumbed to the injury because of the accident which took place on 18.04.2022, the Tribunal has rightly held the Appellant-Insurer liable to pay the compensation with right of recovery being granted as against the Owner-Respondent No. 5. It is also contended that P.W. 1 in her evidence clearly stated that the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the evidence laid by P.W. 1 that the deceased was working as a Labourer in the offending vehicle, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned award. It is also contended that since without proper appreciation of the materials placed, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,23,000/- along with interest, the same needs enhancement. 8. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Claimants, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer made further submission and produced before this Court copy of the F.I.R. so submitted by the brother of the deceased along with other document so exhibited by the Claimants-Respondents before the Tribunal. Placing reliance on the said documents, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer contended that on the fateful day the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle along with two others. Since the sitting capacity of the vehicle is only two and admittedly the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // deceased was travelling in that vehicle along with two other persons, so he has to be treated as a gratuitous passenger and accordingly the Appellant could not have been held liable in view of the amended provision contained under Sec. 150 of the M.V. Amended Act, 2019. It is also contended that no evidence was laid by the Claimants-Respondents showing that the deceased was engaged as a Labourer in the offending vehicle. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Owner-Respondent contended that the Owner though appeared before the Tribunal, but no evidence has been laid through him. It is also contended that while filing the written statement before the Tribunal, the Owner- Respondent denied all the facts mentioned in the claim application. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the claim application was filed by the Claimants claiming compensation in respect of the death of the deceased caused due to a motor accident which took place on 18.04.2022. This Court after going through the materials produced before this Court finds that on the fateful day the deceased was travelling along with two other persons in the offending vehicle. Since the sitting capacity of the vehicle, which is not disputed is two, and on the date of accident three persons were travelling in the offending vehicle along with the driver, as per the considered view of this Court, the status of the deceased that he was a Labourer engaged in the offending vehicle should have been proved by leading cogent evidence in that regard. In absence of any such evidence laid before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have held the Appellant liable to pay the compensation. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 10.1. Not only that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the amended provisions contained under Sec. 150 of the M.V. Amended Act, 2019, which was brought into effect w.e.f.01.04.2022, while holding the Appellant liable to pay the compensation with right of recovery against the Owner-Respondent. It is found that right of recovery against the Owner of the offending vehicle was there under the Preamended Proviso to Sec. 149 (4) of the M.V. Act, 1988. But such a provision is not there in the corresponding amended provision to Sec. 150 of M.V. Amended Act, 2019. 10.2. In view of such material irregularity, which his apparent on the face of the impugned judgment and the analysis made hereinabove, this Court to quash judgment dt.30.08.2023, so passed by the learned ADJ-cum-3rd MACT, impugned inclined the is Kuchinda in MAC No. 12 of 2022. While quashing the same, this Court is inclined to remit the matter to the Tribunal to redecide the issue in accordance with law. Since the accident is of the year 2022, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of this year. 11. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case record. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2025 16:27:30 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th March, 2025/Sneha Judge Page 5 of 5