United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gunanidhi Biswal

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bolangir(in short, “the insurer”) challenging the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2021 passed in M.A.C. Case No.8 of 2016 by which the learned 1^st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuapada (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) has directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.3,57,657/- only together with simple interest @ 7% per annum to the Claimant-Respondent No.-1. The learned tribunal has further

¶12

awarded penal interest @ 9% per annum on the award, if the

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Jul-2026 16:06:55

¶15

MACA No.480 of 2022 Page 1 of 4

¶16

same is not paid by the insurer with the time stipulated by the learned tribunal.

¶17

2. The facts in this case being not disputed is not reiterated to avoid repetition. The appellant-insurer, however, challenges the impugned judgment mainly on three grounds; such as, (i) right to recovery, (ii) interest and (iii) quantum.

¶18

3. Heard Mr. Pratyush Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No. 1, but none appears for R-3 despite valid service of notice, however, notice was issued against R-2 with AD on 25.01.2023, however, none appears for R-2 and thereby, applying the proviso to Sub-Rule5 to Rule 9 of Order V of the CPC, the service of notice against R-2 is held sufficient and deemed to have been served on R-2.

¶19

4. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, it appears that the insurance company has not at all led any evidence to establish its plea for violation of term and conditions of policy by the insured and thereby, the learned Tribunal has rightly refused to give the recovery right to the insurer. At this stage, after making a thorough discussion and negotiation with the learned counsel for the

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Jul-2026 16:06:55

¶22

MACA No.480 of 2022 Page 2 of 4

¶23

parties, this Court proposes a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No. 1 by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Mr. Pratyush Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the appellantinsurer leaves it to the discretion of this Court.

¶24

5. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the law laid down by Apex court in Taslim Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC) , since the claimant-respondent No. 1 agrees to the proposal of the Court through his counsel and the counsel for the appellant-insurer without disputing to such proposal leaves it to the discretion of the Court, it is considered that interest of justice would be best served, if the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.3,30,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 20.09.2026 till its realization, which shall be paid by the insurer to the claimant-respondent No.1.

¶25

6. In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of with modification of compensation amount to Rs.3,30,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand) together with interest Signature Not Verified

¶26

MACA No.480 of 2022 Page 3 of 4

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Jul-2026 16:06:55

¶28

@ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 20.09.2016 till its realization and this Court accordingly directs the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the R-1-cum-claimant within eight weeks hence. In case of payment of the modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent No.1 proportionately in terms of the award and the statutory deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back on receipt of deposit of modified compensation amount before the learned Tribunal.

¶29

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶30

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 3^rd day of July, 2026/kishore

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Jul-2026 16:06:55

¶33

MACA No.480 of 2022 Page 4 of 4

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gunanidhi Biswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gunanidhi Biswal

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

Sashi Bhusan Pandey Vs State of Odisha

Janaki Ballabha Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Nayak Vs State of Odisha

D.M.,Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sachala Pradhan

Rinarani Behuria Vs Sumant Barik

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Balangir Vs Bhagabati Behera