Partly allowed

National Insuance Co.Ltd. v. Ahalya Pradhan

Orissa HC20 Jul 2021MACA/255/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an insurance dispute appeal challenging a compensation award. The court held that while a valid insurance policy covered the vehicle accident, the quantum was excessive regarding non-pecuniary losses and funeral expenses. Applying Pranay Sethy, the court modified the award to Rs. 1,00,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation grant reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-; MACA disposed of with partial modification.

National Insuance Co.Ltd. Vs Ahalya Pradhan — Insurance | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.255 of 2015

¶3

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bargarh Branch

Appellant

Ms. R. Pati,

Advocate

-versus-

Ahalya Pradhan & others …. Respondents

¶9

Ms. T. Sinha, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER 20.07.2021

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶15

2. This matter involves a challenge to the judgment and award granted by the Additional District Judge-cum-3^rd MACT, Jharsuguda in M.A.C Case No.30 of 2012.

¶16

3. Taking into account the submissions made by the parties, this Court finds, even though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the death of the deceased has occurred due to the accident caused by the vehicle in question, but however, there is dispute to the award on the premises that when the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident, burdening the Insurance Company for payment of the award and the other benefits becomes irrational.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

4. Taking this Court to the materials available on record learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in granting compensation on the head of non-pecuniary compensation, loss of care and guidance as well as funeral expenses, which remains contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethy : 2017 (4) TAC 673.

¶20

5. In her opposition to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that for the materials available on record and the reports taken into consideration, there remains no doubt that there involves a insurance policy covering the offending vehicle in question. There is, however, no dispute with regard to the challenge of the Insurance Company so far it relates to grant of compensation on the head of non-pecuniary compensation, loss of care and guidance as well as funeral expenses.

¶21

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the materials available on record, this Court is prima facie satisfied with the fact that there has been involvement of valid insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle in question. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the claim of the Insurance Company for saddling the payment of compensation aspect on the owner of the vehicle in question. However taking into consideration the settled principle of law in the case of Pranay Sethy (supra), this Court finds, there is exorbitant grant of compensation on the head of nonpecuniary compensation, loss of care and guidance as well as funeral expenses. In such view of the matter, this Court interfering with the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

grant of compensation aspect, reduces the same to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakhs) only. This reduction is also made keeping in view that there is heavy grant of compensation on account of death of the deceased.

¶25

7. With the aforesaid partial modification of the award, the MACA stands disposed of.

¶26

8. As restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶27

Ayaskanta Jena

¶28

(Biswanath Rath)
Judge

¶29

Page 3 of 3

National Insuance Co.Ltd. v. Ahalya Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insuance Co.Ltd. v. Ahalya Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Tapas Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Gouri Sankar Khilar Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Aruk Vs Satyabrata Sahu

Purusottam Panigrahi Vs Satyabrata Sahu

Umesh Prasad Dehuri Vs Dr. Pradip Kumar Dash,D.S.E