M/S. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Iswar Chandra Mohanty

As per the S.R. unserved notice returned back from respondent No.2 with a postal endorsement ‘addressee left’. However, considering the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, further notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with as the question of recovery of right may be examined and considered and disposed of by the learned Tribunal.

¶15

Instant appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 20^th December, 2019 passed in Misc. Case No.452 of 2000 by the learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the injured, who lodged the F.I.R. and described the manner in which the accident took place especially with regard to the offending vehicle travelling from Cuttack towards

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Paradeep contradicts the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, hence, therefore, the alleged incident is not to be believed, however, fairly admits the fact that later to the investigation, chargesheet was filed. It is further submitted that the vehicle did not have valid permit at the relevant point of time and on the request of the appellant Insurance Company with an application filed before the learned Tribunal for causing production of the permit, it was not responded to by the owner, hence, therefore, a direction is required to be issued in that regard. Apart from the above, Mr. Dutta claims that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. as it was lodged after 37 days from the date of occurrence. On such grounds as aforesaid, the impugned award is challenged by the appellant Insurance Company.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No.1 submits that the F.I.R though lodged with a delay but it has resulted in submission of the chargesheet, hence, the alleged incident is prima facie proved and established. Furthermore, the vehicle stood insured by the time of accident and hence, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error or serious wrong in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation for and on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶20

Notwithstanding delay of 37 days in lodging the F.I.R., since the investigation was held and it revealed involvement of the offending vehicle with the chargesheet filed against its driver, the Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be a ground to dispute the alleged accident. Furthermore, the description which is differently stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 even though runs contrary to the recitals in the F.I.R., the Court is not to accept the same but to hold that the alleged occurrence did take place. In other words, despite such difference in the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the informant, namely, the injured, the Court is not in favour of accepting the

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

contention of the appellant Insurance Company denying the involvement of the offending vehicle and also the accident in question.

¶23

In so far as the permit of the vehicle is concerned, one of the grounds in the appeal memorandum is that an application was filed before the learned Tribunal to call for the permit from the owner, namely, respondent No.2, which was disposed of by an order dated 4^th July, 2013 but it was not responded to. In fact, the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, respondent No.2 was set ex parte before the learned court below on 4^th July, 2002 long before such an application filed and disposed of. Since there was no response received from the owner and as such a direction was issued to him for causing production of the permit, an adverse inference is accordingly drawn. In other words, the Court considering the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is in favour of allowing the recovery of right subject to a hearing of respondent No.2 by the learned Tribunal as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶24

As to the compensation, it has been determined by the learned Tribunal for an amount of Rs.59,808/- payable with an interest at the rate of 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 2^nd May, 2000 excluding the period from 3^rd September, 2002 to 2^nd July, 2013. In absence of any appeal from the side of the claimant respondent No.1, the Court has no other option except to confirm the award with respect to the period interest payable as it has been directed by the learned Tribunal.

¶25

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned award dated 20^th December, 2019 passed in Misc. Case No.452 of 2000 by the learned 2^nd

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

M.A.C.T., Cuttack is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent with a direction to the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with interest within eight weeks from today leaving it open to proceed against respondent No.2 in so far as the recovery of rights is concerned. It is further directed that in the event, any such request for recovery right with an application received from the appellant Insurance Company, learned Tribunal shall entertain it and thereafter, providing an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.2, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle, to dispose of the same as per and in accordance with law. Furthermore, the Court directs that the statutory deposit along with the accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company on the proof of such deposit and disbursement of the compensation to the claimant respondent No.1.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶30

Balaram

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 09-Mar-2024 16:40:58

¶33

Page 4 of 4

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited v. Iswar Chandra Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited v. Iswar Chandra Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Sutar Vs State of Odisha

Anduru Nagamani Vs State of Odisha

Ruhi Khan Vs Raparthibogi Raju

Pradosh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Kumar Chhotray Vs State of Odisha