Dismissed¶30

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Budhani Mohanta

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – MACA No.789 of 2010

Orissa HC6 Aug 2025MACA/789/2010

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court MACA 789/2010; New India Assurance appeal against MACT Keonjhar award Rs.2,00,000/- + 7% interest (M.A.C No.313 of 2001); death of Gouri Mahanta in capsizing of truck BHO-8707 on 28.2.1999; insurer disavowed liability citing non-valid insurance and carriage in goods vehicle; award upheld as just compensation relying on Sunita v. United India Insurance (2025 INSC 867); recovery from owner permitted; appeal and claimants' cross-objection dismissed; Section 173 MV Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and cross-objection dismissed; statutory deposit along with accrued interest to be refunded to the Appellant on proper application within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the Tribunal. ¶30

N.I.a.Co.Ltd Vs Budhani Mohanta — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? +2 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

This Court holds that the learned Tribunal, after assessing the evidence on record, has awarded just compensation, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award.

¶29

Key takeaways

It shall be open for the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - MACA No.789 of 2010 - Orissa High Court (V. Narasingh, J.), judgment dated 06.08.2025. Insurance Company appealed against the judgment dated 22.05.2010 of the 1st M.A.C.T, Keonjhar in M.A.C No.313 of 2001 awarding Rs.2,00,000/- with 7% interest for the death of Gouri Mahanta, who died when truck BHO-8707 capsized on 28.2.1999; Claimants had also filed a cross-objection for enhancement. Appellant contended the vehicle was not validly insured on the date of accident and that liability did not arise as the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle. Keeping in view the Apex Court judgment in Sunita and others vrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2025 INSC 867), the Court held the Tribunal had awarded just compensation after assessing the evidence, declined to interfere, and left the Insurance Company free to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. Appeal and cross-objection dismissed; statutory deposit with accrued interest to be refunded to the Appellant on proper application within six weeks of proof of deposit of the modified amount.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.789 of 2010

¶3

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

¶4

Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co …. Ltd. Appellant

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1.Budhani Mohanta 2.Khirod Mohanta 3.Bharat Mohanta 4.Sukanti Mohanta 5.Solochana Mohanta …. 6.Omkar Singh Respondents

¶7

For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

For Respondents : Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate (R 1-5)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶10

Date of hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 06.08.2025

¶11

V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the AppellantInsurance Company and learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimants.

¶12

2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2010 passed by the learned 1^st M.A.C.T,

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

Keonjhar in M.A.C No.313 of 2001 awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

¶15

The Claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶16

3. The brief facts of the Claimants are that on 28.2.1999 while the deceased Gouri Mahanta along with other labourers were proceeding in the offending vehicle bearing registration number BHO-8707 from Kaliapani side towards Tamkia, the truck capsized on the road and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Alleging that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Claimants filed claim case before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶17

4. Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte. AppellantInsurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition.

¶18

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

¶19

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation ?

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

If so to what extent and from whom ?”

¶22

In order to substantiate the claim, ClaimantPetitioner No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and one independent witness examined as P.W.2 and documents were exhibited on behalf of the Claimants and marked as Exts.1 to 5.

¶23

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

¶24

Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that on the alleged date of accident the vehicle was not validly insured with the AppellantInsurance. Hence, learned Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. He further submits that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same. Hence, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

¶26

6. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Claimants.

¶27

7. On a conspectus of the evidence on record and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

in the case of Sunita and others vrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others¹ , this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence on record has awarded just compensation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It shall be open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.

¶30

8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and cross-objection filed by the Claimants stand dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 06^th August, 2025/Pradeep

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 18:36:44

¶35

1 2025 INSC 867

¶36

Page 4 of 4

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Budhani Mohanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.a.Co.Ltd v. Budhani Mohanta

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

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Binod Bihari Prusty

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Sabitri Jhadia

Sritam Rath Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Das Vs Sk.Rafique

T.Satish Rao Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Sahu Vs State of Odisha