Dismissed

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Sarala Pani

Orissa HC6 Feb 2023MACA/678/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting compensation for a motor-accident death. The court rejected the insurer's evidence of non-involvement and the admission of late evidence from the vehicle owner, directing the insurer to deposit the award amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the insurer is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest within two months.

N.I.a.Co.Ltd Vs Sarala Pani — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.678 of 2006

¶2

Divisional Manager, The New India …. Assurance Company Ltd. Appellant

¶3

Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Sarala Pani and Others

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.K. Barik on behalf of Mr. B. Jalli, counsel for Respondents 1 to 4

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

6.2.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer – Appellant and Mr. S.K. Barik on behalf of Mr. B. Jalli, learned counsel for claimant – Respondents.

¶16

Present appeal by the insurer is directed against impugned judgment dated 8^th February, 2006 of learned 2^nd MACT (SD), Berhampur passed in MAC No.14/02 (156/2000), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.9,51,856/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 16^th March, 2000 has been granted on account of death of deceased Pratap Kumar Das in the motor vehicular accident dated 16^th June, 1999.

¶17

Mr. Dutta, learned counsel submits on behalf of the insurer that involvement of the offending vehicle, i.e. truck bearing registration

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

number WB-41-9119 in the accident is not established and the same has been implanted by the claimants to manage compensation. Mr. Dutta continues to submit that the accident took place as the deceased by riding a motor cycle dashed against a cement pillar laid on the side of the road. Accordingly, the police submitted its charge-sheet dated 20^th November, 1999 stating the case as ‘F.R.T’.

¶20

It is seen that as per the claimants, the accident took place on 16^th June, 1999 when the deceased, a Junior Engineer in the office of GNED, Berhampur was standing besides the motor cycle on the NH, when the driver of the motor cycle had been to Bhagabati Temple. The offending truck being driven rashly and negligently coming from Rambha side on NH-5 dashed the deceased, who was then standing by the side of the road, resulting his death at the spot.

¶21

It is further seen that upon filing of the investigation report by police as ‘F.R.T.’, a protest petition was filed by the wife of the deceased and accordingly Complaint Case No.8 of 2000 was registered by the learned J.M.F.C., Khalikote and upon enquiry, based on the statements of eye witnesses, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 279/304-A of I.P.C. against the accused driver of the offending truck, namely Yunus Sk.

¶22

The claimants have examined three witnesses in support of their case and adduced the protest petition along with initial statements of the witnesses in the criminal complaint case. Among the witnesses examined before the tribunal, P.W.3, namely Raghunandan Mohapatra is the eye witness, who was the driver of the motor cycle in which the deceased was a pillion rider and waiting outside the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

temple. As per the statement of said P.W.3, while he was coming out of the temple saw the accident that how the offending truck dashed the deceased being driven in rash and negligent manner. His evidence has been left unassailed and unrebutted either through cross-examination or by any other independent material produced from the side of the insurance company.

¶25

The owner – Respondent No.5 did not appear to contest the claim application and was set ex-parte. Mr. Dutta submits to adduce additional evidence by filing Misc. Case No.1295 of 2007 along with a copy of affidavit dated 27^th July, 2006 allegedly sworn by Respondent No.5 – Sri Chanchal Hazra, the owner of the offending vehicle. It is prayed to accept it on record as additional evidence along with the copies of police papers and cognizance order of the Magistrate. This prayer of the insurance company as raised by Mr. Dutta is not found convincing to be taken on record as additional evidence. It is for the reason that, first, said affidavit is sworn after pronouncement of the impugned award by the tribunal. It is further not understood as to how the owner responded to the insurance company to submit the affidavit though he did not chose to appear before the tribunal despite valid service of notice on him. Secondly, no evidence has been adduced from the side of the insurance company despite liberty taken under Section 170 of the MV Act to state anything either about denial of involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident or the knowledge of the owner to disown the accident on his part. Therefore, from no point of view the prayer for adducing additional evidence is acceptable and the same is accordingly rejected.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

The material evidences produced on record are found satisfactory to establish involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and negligence on the part of the accused driver. No merit is seen in the contention of the Appellant – insurer to submit otherwise disputing the finding of the tribunal regarding involvement of the offending vehicle.

¶28

There being no further challenge advanced with regard to quantum of compensation and the validity of the insurance policy on the date of accident, no more ground is seen in favour of the Appellant to interfere with the impugned award.

¶29

In the result the appeal is dismissed and the insurer – Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation along with interest before the tribunal as directed by it, within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Respondents on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶33

M.K.Panda

¶34

Page 4 of 4

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Sarala Pani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Sarala Pani

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

Smt Kiran Pandey Vs Dasharathi Barik

Premchand Kumar Shaw Vs Union of India

Jaladhar Dey Vs Indramani Nath

O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Rupanarayan Agrawal

Dusasan @Dusmanta Vs Ashok Ku.Prasad

Icici Lombard Gen.in Vs Sarirendri Babu andORS