Allowed

Rama Ch.Sahoo v. Mohan Charan Sahoo

Orissa HC17 Sept 2019MACA/425/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of motor accident claim by motor accident claims tribunal which had rejected discharge and injury certificate documents for lack of author examination. Court set aside impugned award and awarded Rs. 20,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; compensation of Rs. 20,000 with 6% interest per annum ordered to be deposited by Insurance Company within eight weeks.

Rama Ch.Sahoo Vs Mohan Charan Sahoo — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

MACA No.425 of 2005

¶2

17.09.2019 Heard Mr.Srinibash Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and Mr.N.N.Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶3

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment dated 16.07.2003 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.1161 of 1990 dismissing the claim application filed by the claimantappellant.

¶4

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimantappellant submits that on 23.111990, the appellant along with others was travelling towards Balisahi in a mini truck bearing registration No.ORY-4742 as a Coolie. Due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, it capsized and the appellant along with other occupants of the truck suffered bodily injuries. The truck was validly insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Hence, they filed separate claim petition claiming compensation of rs.40,000/- each.

¶5

3.1 It is further submitted that although the claimant examined as many as three witnesses and exhibited nine documents including the outdoor ticket, injury certificate, discharge certificate etc., in support of his case, the Tribunal on a hyper technical plea to the effect that author of the exhibits, namely the Doctor was not examined to

¶6

¶7

prove those documents, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the appeal has been filed.

¶8

Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that there are serious discrepancies in the exhibits. The veracity of such documents could have been established by examining the author of the same. That being not done, learned Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the claim petition. He further contended that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence and the appellants were travelling in the truck as gratuitous passengers. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation for breach of policy condition.

¶9

Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that the Tribunal has accepted that the appellant has received injuries due to the vehicular accident. It is also not disputed that the appellant was treated as indoor patient in SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Ext.2, is the discharge certificate of the appellant from SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. It also reflects that he was being treated as an indoor patient in SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from 10.09.1990 to 07.11.1990 for multiple injuries. Ext. 3 is the certificate granted by Dr.M.K.Mohapatra of the said Hospital which discloses that the appellant had 40% disability. Exts. 2 and 3 were disbelieved for the reason that such documents do not bear endorsement to the effect that

¶10

¶11

the appellant received injuries due to vehicular accident in question. In view of the above, learned Tribunal while adjudicating the claim petition under section 166 of the Act, sat over the matter as a Civil Court and adhered to the hyper technicalities in proving the documents. Provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to the summary proceedings under the Act. It is a benevolent statute enacted with an object to award just compensation to the victims of motor vehicle accidents. Thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by setting aside the impugned judgment. But in the instant case, the accident took place on 23.03.1990, i.e., more than 29 years back and the documents in support of the injuries suffered by the appellant due to the accident are available on record. In that view of the matter, this Court refrains itself from remitting the same back to avoid further delay in disposal of the case. On the other hand, taking into consideration the totality of the fact situation of the case, the impugned award is set aside and a compensation of Rs.20,000/(rupees twenty thousand) with 6% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realization of the award to meet the ends of justice, which shall be deposited by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company before learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks hence. On deposit of

¶13

¶14

the aforesaid amount along with interest, the same shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification and on payment of proper fee.

¶15

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

¶16

.................................

¶17

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶18

Rama Ch.Sahoo v. Mohan Charan Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Ch.Sahoo v. Mohan Charan Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuni Prava Swain Vs Saroja Ku.Das

Minati Dalei Vs Amulya Ku.Swain

Nirmali Rout Vs Amulya Ku.Swain

Sadasiva Panda Vs Maguni Dash

Sadasiva Panda Vs Maguni Dash

Sudarshan Sahoo Vs Ranjubala Mohapatra