The Divl. Manager, M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra Sahoo

Instant appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the li a bility and also quantum of compensation d irected in M.A.C. Case N o .251 of 2012 with impugned award d ated 27^th January, 2023 by learned 2^nd Additional District Judge-cum-3^rd M.A.C.T., Bhuba n eswar on the grounds stated therein.

¶14

Mr. Sa t pathy, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company denies the involvement of the offending vehicle a nd claims that the same h a s been planted. While advancing such a plea, Mr. Satpathy would submit that the alleged accident took p l ace inside Railway Dumpin g Yard and the report was lodged a day a f ter against an unknown ve h icle and the vehicle in question bearing r egistration

¶15

P a ge 1 of 4

¶16

No.ORU-6271 w as seized after about ten months from t h e date of occurrence and t he chargesheet was filed four months af t er, hence, therefore, doubt arises with regard to the involvement of t he alleged vehicle, the fact w hich was not duly taken judicial notice of b y learned Trial court. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the claimants respon d ents Nos. 1 to 4 submits that though ther e has been delay in recover y of the accident vehicle but the investigation revealed its involvement leading to submission of the chargesheet against its driver, therefore, the alleged accident is not to be disbeliev e d on any such ground.

¶17

5. Gone t h rough the impugned award i.e. Annexure-1 .

¶18

The ch a rgesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registrati o n No.ORU-6271 stands marked as Ext.2. N o doubt, there has been delay in seizure of the vehicle in qu e stion and submission of ch a rgesheet almost after eleven months from t he date of occurrence. But t he incident having been reported imme d iately just one day after w h ich is supported by the evidence of P.W. 2 and the fact that there h as been a police investigation and sub m ission of chargesheet at th e end, the Court is of the view that no suc h doubt or any kind of susp i cion should be entertained regarding invol v ement of the alleged vehicle, so therefore, the contention of Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel f or the appellant Insurance Company in th a t regard is not accepted.

¶19

In so f a r as the quantum of compensation is con c erned, the learned Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 19,49,500/- which according to Mr. Satpathy i s based on a wrong calculation. In fact, a ca l culation is made and submitted to the Court by claiming that a s u m of Rs.

¶20

P a ge 2 of 4

¶21

16,76,500/- is p a yable to the claimants respondents Nos. 1 to 4 with an yearly income of Rs. 90,000/- in addition 40% tow a rds future prospects for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, in total, Rs. 1,26,000/- and after 1/4^th deduct i on, it becomes Rs. 94,500/- and by a multi p lier of 17, the compensatio n becomes Rs.16,6,500/- to add the same, it is claimed that an amount o f Rs. 70,000/- should be allowed towards the general damages. Consid e ring the calculation provided to the Cou r t which is examined and c o mpared with the one arrived at by learne d Tribunal, the Court is of the view that in fact, there has been a wrong calculation. Hav i ng said that, the Court is in agreement with Mr. Satpathy, learne d counsel for the appellant Insurance Comp a ny and to hold that an am o unt of Rs. 16,76,500/- along with the inte r est @ 6% per annum is ind e ed payable to the claimants respondents N os. 1 to 4. The Court is als o inclined to waive out the penal interest levied by learned Tribunal a s the same is without any reason assigned.

¶22

8. Hence, it is ordered.

¶23

The a p peal stands allowed in part. Conseq u ently the impugned awar d passed in MAC Case No. Case No.251 o f 2012 by learned 2^nd Additional District Judge-cum-3^rd M.A.C.T., Bhu b aneswar is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the appellant Insura n ce Company to deposit an amount of Rs.1 6 ,76,500/towards compe n sation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within e ight weeks from today which shall i m mediately thereafter be dis b ursed in favour of the claimants responden t Nos. 1 to 4. The Court dir e cts that there shall be no penal interest as it has been levied by learn e d Tribunal. In so far as the statutory deposit is concerned, the C ourt lastly directs that the same shall be r e funded to

¶24

P a ge 3 of 4

¶25

the appellant Ins u rance Company along with accrued inter e st thereon soon after the compensation amount is deposited and disbursed in favour of the claimants respondents Nos.1 to 4.

¶26

kabita

¶27

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 11-Apr-2024 12:18:33

¶30

P a ge 4 of 4

The Divl. Manager, M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divl. Manager, M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Sahoo

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

Prabir Kumar Harichandan Vs the State of Odisha

Bulu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nisamani Rath

Arun Kumar Singh Vs Union of India

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose Vs Saraswati Jena

M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Puspanjali Das