Partly allowed

Mamata Sadangi v. Dhirendra K.Jain

Orissa HC5 Apr 2023MACA/641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave Petition challenging Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refusal to grant compensation. High Court set aside Tribunal findings on driver negligence, holding truck driver was negligent based on FIR and Criminal Court cognizance, and remitted matter for fresh adjudication on liability and quantum.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh adjudication on liability and quantum within four months.

Mamata Sadangi Vs Dhirendra K.Jain — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.641 of 2013

¶2

Mamata Sadangi and another

¶3

…. Appellants Mr. A.Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Dhirendra Kumar Jain and others …. Respondents None

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

05.04.2023

Order No.

1. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellantsclaimants. None appears on call for the Respondents though the names of set of lawyers are indicated in the cause list.

¶12

2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned order dated 30.04.2013 of learned M.A.C.T., Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in M.A.C. No.66/2009, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.

¶13

3. The case of the claimants is that, they are the dependants of the deceased – Sudam Charan Sadangi, who died in the motor vehicular accident dated 02.06.2007. At the time of accident, said Sudam Charan Sadangi was coming in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-03-C-2913 along with another. On the way at village Bandapala, the offending Truck bearing Registration No.CG-04-G-4956 coming in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind with high speed. As a result of the same, the other rider died on the spot and the

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

deceased was taken to the hospital in a serious condition where he succumbed to the injuries.

¶16

4. The Police registered Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No.67 dated 2.6.2007 and submitted the final report to the effect that the driver of the offending truck was not negligent, but the motorcycle driver was negligent for causing the accident since it was overtaking the offending truck at the time of accident. The submission of final report by the Police was objected by the informant, namely, Muralidhar Kara and pursuant to his protest, learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna took cognizance of offences under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C. against the accused-driver of the offending truck, namely, Barun Bagarty.

¶17

5. The claimants have examined two witnesses on their behalf including P.W.2, the eye-witness of the accident.

¶18

6. The learned Tribunal framed four issues, which are as follows:

¶19

“(i) Whether the deceased sustained death because of the accident involving the offending vehicle on dt.2.6.2007 ?

¶20

(ii) Whether the owner (OP No.1) alone, the insurer (O.P.No.2) alone or both are liable to pay any compensation to the claimants ?

¶21

(iii) To what amount of compensation each or all claimants are entitled ?

¶22

(iv) To what relief ?”

¶23

7. In respect of Issue No.1, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased-Sudam Charan Sadangi was driving the motorcycle and due to his own fault the accident took place.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Based on the conclusion arrived under Issue No.1, the rest of the issues were answered against the claimants holding that they are not entitled for any compensation.

¶26

8. It is seen from the copy of the order of learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna passed in G.R. Case No.351 of 2007 dt.26.3.2009 that cognizance for offences under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C. has been taken against the driver of the offending truck for causing the accident. Further, the contents of the FIR clearly depicts that the driver of the offending truck was negligent for causing the accident resulting death of riders of the motorcycle. P.W.2 being the eye-witness has categorically stated against the driver of the offending truck. His evidence has not been assailed in the crossexamination. As such, from the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna, dated 26.3.2009, it is established that the driver of the offending truck bearing Registration No.CG-04-G-4956 is completely negligent for causing the accident. The reliance placed by learned Tribunal on the Police investigation report without referring to the evidence of P.W.2 and subsequent order of learned S.D.J.M. is found erroneous. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 is set aside. Issue No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the claimants that the deceased-Sudam Charan Sadangi died due to the injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 2.6.2007 involving the offending Truck bearing Registration No.CG-04-G-4956 due to negligence of its driver.

¶27

9. Consequently, the findings given in the impugned order under Issue Nos.2 to 4 are also set aside and in the circumstances, the

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

matter is remitted back to learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication on Issue Nos.2 to 4.

¶30

10. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and as stated above, the matter is remitted back to learned Tribunal for fresh decision on Issue Nos.2 to 4 based on the evidences already produced on record. The Appellants are directed to appear before learned Tribunal on 1^st May, 2023 along with a certified copy of this order and the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the claim application afresh within a period of four months from the date of appearance. It is open for the insurance company to appear before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed and contest the case. Since the evidences have already been produced on record, no more need is felt to get further evidence. But nevertheless, if learned Tribunal considers it expedient, may grant opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any.

¶31

11. With aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

¶32

12. The copies of the evidences and exhibits produced in course of hearing are kept on record.

¶33

13. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶34

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶35

B.K. Barik

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Mamata Sadangi v. Dhirendra K.Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Sadangi v. Dhirendra K.Jain

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

Raghunath Pradhan and Others Vs Dasamali@Dasamalik Thakurani

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Brahmananda Sahoo

Regional Manager, M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parbati Rout

Reliance Gen.Ins.Co. Vs Sankri Kisan andORS

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Brundaban@Brunda Bag

D.M.,National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sukanti Dei