U.I.I.Co.Ltd Vs Tofani Parida

short „the M.V. Act, 1988‟) preferred by the appellant(Insurance Company) challenging an award passed by the learned 4^th MACT, Puri in MAC No.391 of 2001 has been taken up for its final disposal after hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides at the stage of admission.

¶13

The appellant/Insurance Company(Opposite Party No.2 in MAC

¶14

No.391 of 2001) has challenged the impugned award on the ground that,

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

the insurance policy of the offending Tractor was not valid at the time of accident.

¶17

In the pleadings of the Opposite Party No.2(Appellant-Insurance Company), there is no specific/definite stand that, at the time of accident of the victim(injured-petitioner) through the offending Tractor, the said Tractor was not insured before its Company. The Opposite Party No.2(Appellant-Insurance Company) neither has adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence during enquiry/trial of MAC No.391 of 2001 about the absence of insurance policy of the offending Tractor before its company at the time of such accident. Rather, the oral

¶18

as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner(claimant) during enquiry/trial of MAC No.391 of 2001 corroborating his pleadings are going to show that, at the time of accident of the injured-petitioner through the offending Tractor, the said offending Tractor was duly ensured before the Insurance Company, i.e., Opposite Party No.2/appellant.

¶19

The documents, i.e., F.I.R., charge-sheet, seizure list and injury report has been marked as Exts.1 to 4 on behalf of the claimant(petitioner) during enquiry/trial showing the validity of the insurance policy of the offending Tractor before the Opposite Party No.2(appellant-Insurance Company) at the time of the accident of the

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

injured-petitioner through that offending Tractor. Because, it is well evident from the Ext.2 (charge-sheet) and Ext.3(seizure list) that, at the time of the accident of the injured-petitioner, the insurance policy of the offending Tractor before the Opposite Party No.2 (Appellant-Insurance Company) was valid, but, the said exhibited documents were not objected/disputed by the appellant(Insurance Company) during crossexamination to the witnesses of the claimant(petitioner).

¶23

During the cross-examination to the witnesses of the claimant, not even a single question has been asked on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2(Insurance Company) disputing the contents of the aforesaid exhibited documents including the charge-sheet and seizure list vide Exts.2 and 3. For which, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant/petitioner about the validity of the insurance policy of the offending Tractor before the Opposite Party No.2(Insurance Company) has remained un-assail and unshaken.

¶24

As such, there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2(Insurance Company-appellant) to dispute the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the injured-petitioner showing(proving) the validity of the insurance policy of the offending Tractor before the Opposite Party No.2(Apepllant-Insurance Company) at the time of accident of the injured-petitioner.

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

There are guidelines of the Apex Court for adjudication of the

¶28

motor vehicular claim cases like this case/appeal at hand in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶29

(i) 2021(3) CCC-497 (S.C.) : Oriental Insurance Company Limited vrs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon(deceased) Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another— Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfills the policy of legislation favourable to those in whose interest, Act has been passed.

¶30

(ii) (2009) 43 OCR(S.C.)-773 : Ningamma and another vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166— Absence of specific pleading would not deprive a party from getting “just compensation” in case, the claimant is able to make out a case in as much as the M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation.

¶31

As per the above guidelines of the Apex Court, the M.V. Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation. For which, courts in construing social welfare legislation had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction, which fulfills the policy of legislation favourable to those, in whose interest, Act has been passed.

¶32

Here, in this appeal/case at hand, when there is no plea in the written statement of the appellant(Insurance Company) in MAC No,391 of 2001 about the absence of insurance policy of the offending Tractor at the time of causing accident to the claimant petitioner through the same and when there is no evidence during enquiry/trial of MAC No.391 of

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

// 5 //

¶35

2001 on behalf of the Insurance Company about the absence of insurance

¶36

policy of the offending Tractor at the time of accident of the injuredpetitioner and when no question has been asked on behalf of the appellant(Insurance Company) to the witnesses of the claimant(petitioner) disputing the validity of the insurance policy of the offending Tractor deposed by them and when the appellant(Insurance Company) has raised such ground for the first time in this appeal, without any foundation for the same during the enquiry/trial, then at this juncture, the aforesaid ground raised by the Insurance Company cannot be acceptable under law. For which, by applying the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court for adjudication of cases/appeals in M.V. Act concerning the motor vehicular accident claim cases, I find no justification for interfering with the impugned award/judgment passed by the learned 4^th MACT, Puri in MAC No.391 of 2001 in favour of the injured-petitioner.

¶37

Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the

¶38

appellant(Insurance Company). The same must fail.

¶39

In result, the appeal filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) is dismissed on contest.

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

// 6 //

¶42

As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company

¶43

is disposed of finally.

¶44

Registry is directed to send back the LCRs of this MACA No.66 of 2010 forthwith for payment of the awarded compensation amount with interest to the claimants as directed by the learned 4^th MACT, Puri in MAC No.391 of 2001 as early as possible.

¶45

The deposited statutory amount made by the appellant (Insurance Company) before the Hon‟ble Courts in this appeal shall be refunded to the appellant (Insurance Company) on production of receipt regarding deposit of the awarded compensation amount before the learned Tribunal in MAC No.391 of 2001.

¶46

( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶47

The 25^th of September, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2024 15:40:43

¶50

Page 6 of 6

U.I.I.Co.Ltd v. Tofani Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.I.I.Co.Ltd v. Tofani 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

Pyari Vs B.D.A.

Sobha Gouda Vs a.Santosh K.Patra

Sastami Bhoi Vs O.I.Co.Ltd

Shiba Pr.Barik Vs Satyabrata Barik

Uchhab Bhoi Vs Babaji Ojha

Kunjalata Jena Vs Prahallad Pradhan