Partly allowed

O.I.Co.Ltd v. Babaji Charan Sahu

Orissa HC10 Apr 2023MACA/25/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed appeals arising from a Motor Accidents Compensation Case. It held that permanent incapacitation was unrelated to accident injuries, rejecting the claim for loss of future income. The Court confirmed the insurer's liability based on police records and directed payment of the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed of; insurer directed to deposit compensation amount and interest within two months; claim for future loss of income rejected.

O.I.Co.Ltd Vs Babaji Charan Sahu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.25 of 2011 & MACA No.45 of 2011

¶3

(From the judgment dated 19^th October, 2010 passed by learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., N.D., Sambalpur in M.A.C. Case No.45 of 1997 (K))

¶4

In MACA No.25 of 2011

¶5

M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant
-versus-
….
Babaji Charan Sahu (since dead) Respondents
through LRs and another
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. P. Sinha, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondent No.1
In MACA No.45 of 2011
Indumati Sahu and another …. Appellants
-versus-
Sushil Kumar Saha and another …. Respondents

¶6

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶7

For Appellants : Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P. Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.2

¶8

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶9

Page 1 of 7

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶11

JUDGMENT 10^th April, 2023

¶12

B.P. Routray, J.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. P. Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶14

and Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶15

2. Both the appeals being arise out of the common judgment dated 19.10.2010 of learned 2^nd MACT, N.D., Samablpur in M.A.C. Case

¶16

No.45 of 1997 (K), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.36,000/has been granted along with interest @6% per annum to the injuredclaimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.24.02.1997 on account of injury sustained by the original claimant in a motor vehicular accident dated 2.9.1996, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶17

3. MACA No.25 of 2011 has been filed by the insurer challenging the award and MACA No.45 of 2011 has been filed by the LRs of the injured praying for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶18

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

4. The accident took place on 2.9.1996 and as per the injury report

¶21

filed under Ext.6, the original claimant sustained three simple injuries. Subsequently, fourth injury was detected during his treatment which was fracture on 2^nd vertebra. As per the injured, he underwent treatment as an indoor patient in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for a period of ten days. At the time of accident, he was serving as a Teacher in Kuanar Primary School. Subsequently, he took volunteer retirement due to permanent incapacitation. As per the opinion of Medical Board under Ext.9 (dated 16.2.1998), the original claimant, namely, Babaji Charan Sahu was permanently incapacitated for further service in consequence of post traumatic monoblegia bladder dysfunction. During pendency of both the appeals, the original claimant died on 18.1.2016.

¶22

5. Accordingly, it is contended on behalf of the claimants that the original claimant is entitled for loss of future income.

¶23

6. On the other hand, the insurance company disowns his liability

¶24

to indemnify the compensation amount on the ground that the offending vehicle, i.e. Truck bearing Registration No.WB-03-3567 was not insured with them on the date of accident.

¶25

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

7. First dealing with the prayer of the claimants for enhancing the compensation amount, their claim to enhance the compensation amount on the count of loss of future income is not found convincible.

¶28

It is for the reason that the reason of permanent incapacitation has no

¶29

nexus with the injuries sustained in the accident. As per Ext.9, the original claimant was suffering from bladder dysfunction and it is not stated anything therein that the same is anyway related to such injuries sustained in the accident dated 2.9.1996. Three simple injuries mentioned in the injury report under Ext.6 are to the effect that two injuries on the right occipital region over the head and third one on the right knee. It is further admitted by the injured that he was treated as an indoor patient for 10 days only. Neither such simple injuries sustained

¶30

by him nor the grievous injury as mentioned in the Discharge Certificate have any connection with bladder dysfunction and therefore, the permanent incapacitation sustained by the injured is found unrelated to the same. As such, the prayer of the claimants for future loss of income is rejected.

¶31

8. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- for the injuries and Rs.11,000/- towards treatment expenses. The amount so directed by the

¶32

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶33

Page 4 of 7

¶34

learned Tribunal is though found unambiguous without specific count, but the same is found just taking the quantification as a whole and as per prevalent value of money on the date of accident. As such, no merit

¶35

is seen to enhance the same.

¶36

9. With regard to liability of the insurance company, it is seen that according to the Police seizure list, the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. The seizure list prepared by the Police and exhibited on behalf of the claimants has not been objected by the insurance company. They also did not adduce any evidence in support of their denial regarding validity of the insurance policy. Thus the contention raised by the insurance company to exonerate them from the liability is found without merit. Accordingly, the finding of learned Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount is confirmed.

¶37

10. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the insurer i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest as directed by learned Tribunal in the impugned award within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the present

¶38

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶39

Page 5 of 7

¶40

Appellants in MACA No.45 of 2011, who are the LRs of the original claimant, on such terms and proportion to be decided by the Tribunal.

¶41

11. On deposit of the award amount before learned Tribunal and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund application before this Court, the statutory deposit made in MACA No.25 of 2011 before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the

¶42

Insurance Company.

¶43

12. It is submitted that now the record in MAC Case No.45 of 1997 (K) is in the record room of 1^st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar and as such, Mr. Mohanthy, learned counsel for the claimants prays that 1^st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar may be authorized to receive the deposit and disburse the amount since the claim application was originally filed before the learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar. Accordingly, the 1^st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar is directed to verify the correctness of the submission made by Mr. Mohanty from his record room and if the concerned record is found available there, then the deposited amount shall be accepted by him (1^st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar) and disbursed in favour of the LRs of the original injured as directed above.

¶44

Page 6 of 7

¶45

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶46

13. The copies of Ext.6 and Ext.9 as produced in course of hearing

¶47

are kept on record.

¶48

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶49

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶50

MACA Nos.25 & 45 of 2011

¶51

Page 7 of 7

O.I.Co.Ltd v. Babaji Charan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.I.Co.Ltd v. Babaji Charan Sahu

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

M/S. Mahavir Pvc Cables Factory, Cuttack Vs M/S. Indo Mahaveer Kable, Dhenkanal

D.M.,M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kesab Pradhan

Union of India Vs Banamali Khuntia

Bharat Majhi Vs Nalinikanta Mishra

Prabhas Ch.Agrawal Vs Sanatan Patel

Hrusikesh Sahoo Vs Union of India (Ncb)