Dismissed

Bajaj Allianz Gen.in v. Niranjan Pattnaik

Orissa HC25 Sept 2025MACA/103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed a Tribunal award of Rs.2,70,500 plus 7% interest for injuries to a pillion rider, arguing no premium covered pillion riders and the claim was fabricated. With no rebuttal evidence adduced by the insurer and the injured claimant's evidence unchallenged, the High Court found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to deposit award amount within eight weeks; statutory deposit with interest refundable on proof.

Bajaj Allianz Gen.in Vs Niranjan Pattnaik — Insurance | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.103 of 2011

¶3

In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶4

Branch Manager, M/s. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Co. …. Ltd. Appellant

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. Niranjan Pattnaik 2. Rajiv Lochan …. Pattnaik Respondents

¶7

For Appellant : Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate

¶8

For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate (R-1) Mr. M. Nanda, Advocate (R-2)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶10

Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 25.09.2025

¶11

V. Narasingh, J. The present MACA has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 27.09.2010 passed by the learned M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur in MAC No.23 of 2007 whereby learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,70,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7%

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

¶14

Respondent No.1 as Claimant filed MAC No.23 of 2007, as noted above, claiming compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- on account of the injury sustained by him while he was going in a motor cycle bearing registration number OR-24-7587 as a pillion rider.

¶15

The owner of the offending motor cycle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and resisted the claim of the Claimant on the ground that he having valid driving licence and valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. The present Appellant as the Insurer was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 and filed its written statement denying all the assertions in the claim petition.

¶16

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

¶17

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

¶18

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ?

¶19

To what relief ?”

¶20

In order to substantiate his stand, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 50. The owner of

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

the offending motor cycle has exhibited documents which were marked as Exts.A to C.

¶23

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶24

On consideration of the materials on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,70,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

¶25

The award is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the injured Respondent No.1 is the father of Respondent No.2-Rabjib Lochan Pattnaik and was travelling in the motor cycle which was covered by “Act Only Policy” as a pillion rider and admittedly no premium having been paid towards the pillion rider, no liability as such can be fixed qua the Insurance Company. 4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Khan that the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the conduct of the Respondent No.1 which establishes that it is a cooked up case inasmuch as during the period when the injured was supposed to be undergoing treatment at the same time he appeared at the police station to put the law into motion. Referring to the above, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Khan submits that fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is ex facie

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

illegal as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants Respondents refutes such submission. It is stated that the impugned award does not warrant any interference more so when right of recovery has been afforded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

¶29

On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to fortify their stand that the case is a stage managed one, to somehow grab the compensation.

¶30

The evidence of P.W.1 the injured has gone unchallenged.

¶31

In such view of the matter this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Tribunal failed in its appreciation in considering that the institution of the case is itself doubtful.

¶32

The injury report and discharge certificate of different hospitals including super specialist of Dental Clinic have been placed on record and marked as Exts.5, 7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13. The bills of expenses are also on record and marked as Exts.14 and 15 to 38 along with the prescriptions as Exts.44 to 50.

¶33

On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal in paragraph-9 of its impugned judgment has referred to the treatment as undergone

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

by the Claimant and on the basis of the materials on record, taking into account that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month for serving in the Postal Department and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, loss of income was assessed at Rs.96,000/- and taking into account the medical bills, the total amount was arrived at Rs.2,70,500/-.

¶36

On a conspectus of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the amount before the learned Tribunal, statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company on proper application.

¶39

The MACA is accordingly disposed of.

¶40

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶41

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signature Not Verified Dated the 25^th September, 2025/Pradeep

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 30-Sep-2025 13:06:12

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Bajaj Allianz Gen.in v. Niranjan Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz Gen.in v. Niranjan Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Trinath Rao Vs a.Buchaya Chatty

Gayadhar Biswal Vs State and Ors.

Ramakanta Malik Vs State and Anr.

Pabitra Rout @ Papu Vs State of Odisha

Gava Pradhan Vs Pramoda Ku.Lenka

Chita Ranjan Nayak @ Kuna Vs State of Odisha