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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA NO.538 of 2025

¶3

(An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988).

¶4

Divisional Manager, … Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Balangir

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Bhagabati Behera & Others … Respondents For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate (R-1 to 3)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶9

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 03.07.2026 (ORAL)

¶10

G. Satapathy, J.

¶11

1. This is an appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the appellantDivisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Balangir (in short “the insurer”) assailing the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed in MAC Case No.45 of 2018 by which the learned 1^st Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Boudh (In short “the tribunal”) has directed the insurer to pay compensation

¶12

amount of Rs.9,10,000/- together with simple interest @ 6%

¶13

MACA No.538 of 2025 Page 1 of 5

¶14

per annum w.e.f. 23.08.2018 till its realization to the claimants-respondent no.1 to 3.

¶15

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, right to recovery, contributory negligence & quantum of compensation.

¶16

3. Heard Mr. Girija Prasad Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Kapila Charan Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶17

4. Indisputably, notice issued against R-4 is yet to be held sufficient, but his presence in the present appeal would only arise, if this Court holds violation of policy conditions by the insured to saddle the liability of paying compensation on him, however, although the insurer has claimed violation of policy conditions by R-4 for not having any route permit and the driver not having DL, it has not led any evidence to establish such facts and that too, no policy document has been produced before the learned tribunal. In absence of any oral evidence, mere pleading a fact without leading any evidence would not be sufficient to establish

¶18

MACA No.538 of 2025 Page 2 of 5

¶19

such plea. Further, merely marking a document as exhibit would not establish the plea, unless such document has some connection with the plea and in this case, the appellant-insurer has only filed some documents i.e. police papers, but it has not led any evidence to establish its plea of the vehicle not having any route permit or the driver having no DL. Besides, neither any specific plea of contributory negligence has been taken by the insurer nor has it led any evidence to that effect. In the absence of any evidence, much less documentary evidence to sustain the plea of violation of policy condition by the insured-R4 or contributing negligence as advanced for the appellant in this appeal and on consideration of materials placed on record, the learned tribunal has rightly not extended any recovery right to the appellant-insurer nor has saddled the liability of paying compensation in proportion for the contributory negligence. The aforesaid pleas of right to recovery and contributory negligence having negatived, the presence of R- 4 is not required in this appeal.

¶20

5. Besides, this is a claim by R-1 to 3 and claim for compensation in a motor vehicular Act is a beneficial

¶21

MACA No.538 of 2025 Page 3 of 5

¶22

provision of law to advance social and welfare justice and prevent the claimants from destitution and therefore, this Court while concurring with the findings of the learned tribunal with regard to refusing to grant any relief of right to recovery considers it proper to examine the quantum of compensation with the assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

¶23

6. At this stage, since the quantum of compensation is disputed by the appellant-insurance company; after having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record and making a thorough negotiation & discussion with the learned counsel for the parties with regard to quantum of compensation, this Court proposes a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- together with @ 6% per annum w.e.f.23.08.2018 and seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which Mr. Kapila Charan Nayak, learned counsel for the Respondents-claimants by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Mr. Girija Prasad Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion and conscience of the Court.

¶24

MACA No.538 of 2025 Page 4 of 5

¶25

7. In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of with modification of compensation amount to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e.23.08.2018 till its realization and this Court accordingly directs the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants-Respondents within eight weeks hence. In case of payment of the modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants-respondents proportionally 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.

¶26

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶27

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 03^rd day of July, 2026/Jayakrushna Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-Jul-2026 16:00:13

¶29

MACA No.538 of 2025 Page 5 of 5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gunanidhi Biswal

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

Rinarani Behuria Vs Sumant Barik