Allowed

Transport Manager v. Debaki Bhoi

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026MACA/841/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant vehicle owner challenged ALJ awarding 25% liability for a railway crossing accident. Court quashed owner's share and dismissed appeal, holding railway authority solely liable based on open gate fact and Civil Court decree.

What did the court decide?

Sole liability placed on Respondent No.3 Insurance Company; 25% deposit by owner to be refunded by insurance company.

Transport Manager Vs Debaki Bhoi — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.841 of 2010 CNR No. ODHC010042472010

¶2

Transport Manager

¶3

..... Appellant

¶4

Represented by Adv. - M/s.S.K.Rath

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Debaki Bhoi & Ors.

¶7

..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s.A.K.Mishra (for R-3)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

10.09.2026

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-owner of the vehicle as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds therein.

¶16

By filing the present appeal under section 173 of the M.V Act, the Appellant-owner has approached this Court thereby challenging the judgment dated 28.09.2010 passed in M.A.C case No.103 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge-cumM.A.C.T., Jeypore. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned tribunal has awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.1,82,300/- in favour of the claimant. However, the liability has been settled in the ratio of 75% on the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company and 25% on the owner of the vehicle-the present Appellant. Accordingly, the owner-Appellant has been asked to pay a compensation amount of Rs.45,575/- along with interest @ 6%.

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid fixation of liability, which is 1/4^th of the total award, the owner has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

¶19

The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 11.12.1999 in the morning, the deceased-Santosh Kumar Bhoi, husband of the claimant, was traveling in the truck of the Appellant bearing registration No.OR-05D-9359 as a Helper-cum-Sales Agent of the owner from Rayagada to Muniguda. The deceased was aged about 27 years. On the way near Chatikona Railway level crossing while the truck was crossing the railway line, 227 UP Raipur-Visakhapatnam passenger train collided against the truck resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. The accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- at the time of his death.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, referred to the ground No.5 of his appeal memo and submitted before this Court that with regard to the loss caused as a result of the railway accident, a civil suit bearing C.S. No.1 of 2003 was filed by the Appellant before the learned Competent Civil Court. The learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Gunupur, by virtue of a judgment, has held the railway authority entirely liable and a decree has been passed to pay the value of the truck and consignment loaded therein, to the Appellant-owner of the truck. Such judgment of the Civil Court has also been exhibited and marked as Exhibit D before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at this juncture, contended that ignoring the aforesaid valuable piece of evidence, which is a judgment of the Civil Court, the learned

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

Tribunal has fixed 25% of the liability of the total compensation amount on the Appellant-owner of the vehicle.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the owner of the vehicle had no fault. He further contended that the level crossing in question, was a manned level crossing and at the relevant point of time, the level crossing gate was open. As a result, the truck tried to cross such level crossing and met with an accident at the level crossing, resulting in the death of the deceased. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the owner is in no way responsible or liable to pay any compensation.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He further contended that Tribunal, taking into consideration the composite negligence of the owner as well as the railway authority, saddled the liability in the proportion of 1/4^th and 3/4^th , the owner and the Insurance Company respectively. He further contended that the basis adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot be disputed by the Appellant in the present appeal. Since the judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from no illegality, the appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, a prayer was made to dismiss the appeal.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination background facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the impugned judgment, this Court found that the sole question that is to be determined in the present appeal is the saddling of 1/4^th liability of the total compensation amount on the

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

owner-Appellant by the Tribunal. The facts which have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs reveal that the cause of the death of the deceased was directly due to the collision of the truck with the upcoming train at a railway level crossing gate where the manned gate was open. Thus, this Court is of the view that the factual scenario does not indicate that the owner is liable to pay any compensation. Moreover, the finding of the Civil Court as per the Exhibit D judgment and decree, has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while fixing the liability on the appellant-Owner. In such view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed modifying the award to the extent that the entire liability shall be borne by the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company. In the event, the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has deposited their share of the claim amount, the balance 25% which has been saddled with the owner along with interest, be also paid and deposited by the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. Subject to aforesaid modification, the Appeal stands allowed.

¶28

Since the Appeal is allowed, on an application being filed before the Registry, the statutory deposit made by the Appellant along with accrued interest thereof be returned to the Appellant on proper verification.

¶29

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶30

Anil

¶31

Page 4 of 4.

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2026 17:39:51

¶33

Signature Not Verified

Transport Manager v. Debaki Bhoi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transport Manager v. Debaki Bhoi

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