Dismissed

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suraj Oram@Saroj Oram

Orissa HC14 Jul 2023MACA/832/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding it was the valid insurer of the trolley involved in a fatal accident despite a discrepancy in chassis number recording. The court found the insurer's denial of liability baseless and directed payment of the awarded compensation. This case concerns insurance liability and the enforcement of tribunal awards.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the Appellant – insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount falling due to their share along with interest.

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Suraj Oram@Saroj Oram — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.832 of 2015

¶2

National Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Officer-in-Charge, Orissa Legal Cell, Cantonment Road, Cuttack

¶3

…. Appellant

¶4

Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Suraj Oram @ Saroj Oram and Others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. P.K. Mishra, counsel for Respondents 1 & 2

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

14.7.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Appellant – insurer and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for claimant – Respondents 1 & 2.

¶17

Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the impugned judgment dated 6^th April 2015 of learned 2^nd MACT, Sambalpur passed in MAC Case No.198 of 2003 (Sambalpur), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.2,97,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 18^th August, 2003 has been granted on account of death of deceased Santosh Oram in the motor vehicular accident dated 8^th April 2003 and present Appellant has been directed to pay 50% of the same.

¶18

The facts of the case are to the effect that the deceased, as a labourer, was travelling in the tractor bearing registration number OR17-B-4666 attached with trolley bearing registration number OR-17-

¶19

B-8714. He died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The tractor was insured with M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the trolley with National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Appellant). The tribunal while attributing negligence on the part of the driver has directed the respective insurance companies of the tractor and trolley to share the compensation amount in equal proportion. Present Appellant disputes it saying that, they are not liable to indemnify the compensation being not the insurer of tractor and trolley bearing registration number OR17-B-8714 is not owned by Palau Seth.

¶20

The reason for confusion is that the tractor bearing registration number OR-17-B-4666 was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., as per the contention of the claimants. Admittedly, the tractor bearing registration number OR-17B-4666 was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and at the time of accident it was attached with trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714. As per the insurance policy produced under Ext.A tractor bearing registration number OR-17-B-8713 (having Engine No.39133102E03213 and Chassis No.30405005929) along with trolley was insured and the premium was received in respect of the tractor as well as the trolley concerning 6 persons including the driver. Since the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 was attached to tractor bearing registration number OR-17-B-4666 at the time of accident instead of OR-17-B-8713, a plea was advanced that the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 was not registered with the owner Palau Seth and it was not insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. taking advantage of the fact that the chassis number of the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

8714 was not mentioned in the insurance policy under Ext.A. The contention thus raised by National Insurance Co. Ltd. that the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 was not insured with them and Palau Seth was not it’s owner. The witness O.P.W.1, the Assistant Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. has stated in this regard that trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 corresponding to chassis No.6730203 was neither owned by Palau Seth nor any policy of insurance was issued in respect of the same. But this statement of O.P.W.1 is proved to be a false one in view of the registration certificate produced under Ext.B that Palau Seth was the registered owner of said trolley having Chassis No.6730203 (OR-17-B-8714). Ext.A is clear to the extent that the tractor was insured along with the trolley and premium was received for both the tractor and trolley jointly. Therefore the statement of O.P.W.1 to deny the insurance coverage of the trolley with National Insurance Co. Ltd. is found a sheer falsehood and accordingly the contention raised by the Appellant to deny indemnification of compensation amount to the extent of 50% is found without merit. It is seen that the Appellant – insurance company has tried his best to deny the liability taking advantage of the fact that the chassis number of the trolley was not mentioned in the policy certificate under Ext.A. Such attempt of the insurance company is deprecated.

¶23

In view of the discussions made above it is held that National Insurance Co. Ltd is the valid insurer of the trolley bearing registration number OR-17-B-8714 on the date of accident and as such is liable to pay the compensation amount to the extent of 50% as directed by the tribunal.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

In the result the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant – insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount fall due to their share as per direction of the tribunal along with interest, within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

( B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶29

M.K.Panda

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Senior Steno Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 20-Jul-2023 19:13:32

¶32

Page 4 of 4

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suraj Oram@Saroj Oram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Suraj Oram@Saroj Oram

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

Nukalu Payikala Vs Union of India

Soumya Ranjan Behera Vs Union of India

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Tarini Ch.Gauda andANR

Jayanti Panigrahi Vs S.Bhimsen Patro

N.I.Co.Ltd Vs Jayanti Panigrahi

M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Neta Mallick