N.I.a.Co.Ltd Vs Ramakanta Parida

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK M.A.C.A. No.453 of 2007

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jajpur Road, Dist.-Cuttack now represented through the Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Badambadi, Cuttack

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Ramakanta Parida and others …. Respondents

¶7

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

¶8

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

¶9

For Appellant - Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate.

¶10

For Respondents - None

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

¶13

Date of Hearing :02.09.2024 :: Date of Order :04.09.2024

¶14

A.C. Behera, J . This appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988

¶15

preferred by the appellant (M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) was heard from the learned counsel for the appellant for its final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶16

2 . During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the impugned award passed by the learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No.72 of 1992 (K) has been

¶17

challenged in this appeal on the sole ground that, by the time of the motor

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

vehicular accident, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle before its company was not valid, for which, the appellant should not have been made liable by the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division, Sambalpur.

¶20

3 . The 2^nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division, Sambalpur has specifically stated in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment/award that, it is forthcoming from the undisputed documents i.e. Cover Note No.063002 dated 15.03.1991 with Inspector’s Code number as Branch 521502 Agency 30314 and the seizure list vide Ext.4 that, the offending vehicle was insured before the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company (appellant in this appeal) at the time of accident, for which, it is wrong to say that, the offending vehicle was not insured before the opposite party No.2 (appellant in this appeal) at the time of accident. So, the Trial Court directed in the impugned award to the opposite party No.2 (appellant in this appeal) to pay Rs.75,000/- to the petitioners in Misc. (A) Case No.72 of 1992 (K) with interest @ 6% per annum only from 24.02.2003.

¶21

The scope, power and jurisdiction of the Appellate Court at the time of hearing of an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act on the point of admission like this appeal has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

¶22

AIR 1987 (Kerala) 47—New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Pathumma and Ors. —Power and jurisdiction of the Appellate Court at the stage of

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

admission—an appeal has to be dealt with by the High Court in the same manner in which it would deal with an ordinary appeal which is governed by the provisions of Order 41 of the CPC. So, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11-A of the CPC would apply and the High Court is entitled to scrutinize the appeal at the stage of admission to see, if there is a prima facie case for the appellant and whether it is a case where notice should be ordered to the respondent.

¶25

4 . When, the appellant-Insurance Company (opposite party No.2 before the Trial Court) has challenged the award on the ground of want of policy of the offending vehicle before its company at the time of accident and when the Trial Court has already discarded the said plea of the opposite party No.2 (appellant) in paragraph No.5 of the impugned award relying upon the undisputed documents i.e. Cover Note No.063002 dated 15.03.1991 with Inspector’s Code number as Branch 521502 Agency 30314 and the seizure list vide Ext.4 and when the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned award in discarding the above plea of the appellant (Insurance Company) are not unreasonable, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I find no justification to admit this appeal filed by the Insurance Company for making any further delay of payment of the awarded amount to the poor claimants of Misc. (A) Case No.72 of 1992 (K), which was passed way back in the year 2006 i.e. on dated 04.11.2006.

¶26

5 . Hence, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of finally without being admitted.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

The Registry is to transmit this order immediately for payment of award with interest in Misc. (A) Case No.72 of 1992 (K) to the

¶29

petitioners/claimants thereof.

(A.C. Behera),

Judge.

Utkalika

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Sep-2024 11:28:32

¶35

Page 4 of 4

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Ramakanta Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Ramakanta Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benudhar Sahoo Vs Hrudananda Choudhury

Pravakar Naik Vs Bhubaneswar Pati

Binapani Chand Vs Rajabala Sharma

N.I.a.Co.Ltd Vs Sayed Monn Uddin

Bhikari Vs Purusottam

Kasinath Vs Nabin