Dismissed

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. v. Sujata Behera

Orissa HC25 Nov 2022MACA/348/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed insurer's appeal against High Court Compensatory Order, dismissing insurance validity controversy due to lack of evidence. Ordered insurer to deposit compensation awarded by tribunal before disbursement to claimants.

What did the court decide?

Ordered insurer to deposit Rs.2,95,100/- with interest at 6% per annum before tribunal within two months for disbursement to claimants.

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Sujata Behera — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.348 of 2013

¶2

Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental …. Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant

¶3

Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Sujata Behera and Others Respondents

¶6

Mr. T.C. Mohanty, Sr. Counsel for Respondents 1-6

¶7

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER
25.11.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer - Appellant and Mr. T.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for claimant – Respondents 1-6.

¶13

Present appeal by the insurer is against impugned judgment dated 6^th September, 2012 of learned 1^st MACT, Cuttack passed in MAC No.817 of 1999, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.2,95,100/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 20^th September, 1999 has been granted on account of death of the deceased Golakha Chandra Behera in the motor vehicular accident dated 14^th April, 1999.

¶14

Mr. Dutta contends on behalf of the Appellant that the offending vehicle, i.e. truck bearing registration number CIB 8228 did

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

not have a valid policy on the date of accident. The cover note mentioned in the police seizure list is not corresponding to any policy taken in respect of the present offending vehicle.

¶17

In course of hearing Mr. Dutta produces the office copy of the cover note no.15961, valid from 28^th February, 1999 to 27^th February, 2000 in respect of the truck bearing registration number OAO 6177 (TATA 1210 make), registered in the name of one Suresh Kumar Agarwal.

¶18

However, it is seen that no evidence has been led before the tribunal with regard to absence of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle. No positive evidence has been led to deny existence of any policy as claimed nor even any specific pleading to that effect has been taken in the WS. The owner did not come to contest the claim application. The accident is dated 14^th April, 1999 and therefore, after lapse of 23 years it is difficult on the part of the court to give any conclusive opinion on the validity of the insurance policy on the date of accident. The owner being the best person to speak about the policy, it is felt apposite to direct the present Appellant to make payment of compensation to the poor victims – claimants and proceed for recovery of the compensation amount against the owner in accordance with law.

¶19

It needs to be mentioned here that the owner also did not appear before this court despite notices were issued by Registered Post as well as through paper publication.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel does not press his crossobjection for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶22

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer – Appellant to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs.2,95,100/- (two lakh ninety-five thousand one hundred) before the tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 20^th September, 1999, within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Respondents on such terms and proportion to be decided by the learned tribunal.

¶23

The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant before this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant on proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the tribunal.

¶24

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶25

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶26

M.K.Panda

¶27

Page 3 of 3

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. v. Sujata Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. v. Sujata Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kajal Mandal Vs Rama Ch.Pani

Bidulata Swain Vs Union of India

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kajal Mandal

Manager Legal, on Behalf of Icici Bank, Bhubaneswar Vs Gananath Mahapatra

Divl. Manager, M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Malati Parida

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Purna Ch.Sahoo