Allowed

D.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Meenadei Behera

Orissa HC8 Aug 2022MACA/464/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award of compensation to claimants was allowed. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order holding the insurer liable because no material proved the vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, discharging the insurer but allowing claimants to sue the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The insurer is discharged from its liability. Claimants are at liberty to realize the compensation amount from the vehicle owner.

D.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Meenadei Behera — Insurance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.464 of 2014

¶3

The Divisional Manager, Appellant New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶4

Mr.B.K.Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Meenadei Behera and others …. Respondents

¶7

Mr.B.K.Behera-1, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

08.8.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Behera-1, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶16

Present appeal by the Appellant is against the judgment dated 16^th November, 2013 of the Member, 2^nd M.A.C.T.(SD), Berhampur in MAC Case No.188 of 2003 (121/2002-GDC), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,26,000/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 7^th April, 2001.

¶17

Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that despite the offending vehicle was not having insurance policy, the

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

learned Tribunal without any material has erroneously concluded that the same i.e., Tata Van bearing Registration No.MH-12-R9419 was having a valid insurance policy. It is further submitted that despite the discrepancy in the contention of the claimants with regard to the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the accident took place involving the Tata Van bearing Registration No.MH12-R-9419.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr.Behera-1, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Insurer did not either deny about involvement of the offending Tata Van or plead anything before the Tribunal regarding validity of its Insurance Policy.

¶21

Upon hearing both parties and perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that in Issue No.1 the Tribunal upon discussion of the contents of the police report as well as the evidence of P.W.2 has come to the finding that it is the Tata Van bearing Registration No.MH-12-R-9419 involved in the accident wherein the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and disbelieved the contentions of the claimants that the deceased at that time was walking as a pedestrian on the left side of the road. Then the Tribunal came to the conclusion that however, the fact remains that the deceased died at the relevant date, time and place in a motor vehicular accident and so fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Van bearing Registration No.MH12-R-9419 contrary to the case of the claimants that the Truck bearing Registration No.MH-12-A-9491 was involved in the accident. The said approach of the Tribunal in concluding for

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Van ignoring the facts mentioned in the police report is not found proper. It needs to be stated here that when the Tribunal based on the documents has disbelieved the case of the claimants and concluded accordingly that the deceased died while travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the Tata Van, it is not found appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to fix liability on the Insurer.

¶24

Secondly, with regard to the contention of non-availability of any Insurance Policy in respect of the offending vehicle i.e., Tata Van bearing Registration No.MH-12-R-9419, the Tribunal has ignored the said fact by saying that the accident report was submitted by the police that the offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶25

It is true that neither any seizure report with regard to seizure of insurance policy nor any copy of the insurance policy has been produced before the Tribunal to support the contention of the claimants that the offending vehicle was having a valid insurance policy at the time of accident. No prima facie material is brought on record before the Tribunal to reveal that the offending vehicle was having valid insurance policy. On the other hand, it is found the Insurer has specifically pleaded that the vehicle was never insured with it on the date of accident. As such, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was having a valid policy is unsustainable in absence of any material and thus, is set aside.

¶26

In the result, the Appellant-Insurer is discharged from its liability to indemnify the compensation amount. However, the

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

claimants are at liberty to realize the compensation amount from the owner (present Respondent No.5).

¶29

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above direction.

¶30

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶31

C.R.Biswal

¶32

Page 4 of 4

D.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Meenadei Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Meenadei Behera

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gati Krushna Pradhan

Narayan Nath Vs Giridhari Sahoo

Bharat Kr. Behera Vs Giridhari Sahoo

The Divisional Manager (Legal), M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jogesh Kumar @ Mathurananda Swain

N.I.C.Ltd. Vs Manasmita Biswal

Prakash Majhi Vs State of Odisha