Orissa High Court
Bidhu Sekhar Dash vs Premasila Dash And Others on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.775 of 2007
Bidhu Sekhar Dash .... Appellant
Mrs.Sumitra Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Premasila Dash and others .... Respondents
Mrs.Padmaja Pattnaik, Advocate for Respondent No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
13.12.2021
Order No.
17. 1. Heard Mrs.S.Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Appellant
and Mrs.Padmaja Pattnaik on behalf of Mr.Sabita Ranjan
Pattnaik, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5-Insurer.
2. The issue in the present appeal is to the limited extent that
whether the insurer is liable to bear compensation on behalf of the
owner.
3. The learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 31st
July, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-
MACT (III), Sonepur in M.A.C.Case No.19 of 2005 has directed
for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- along with
cost of Rs.1,000/- and interest to the claimant on account of
injury sustained in the accident on 7th April, 2005.
4. Mrs. Mohanty, learned counsel for the owner-appellant
submits that at paragraph-9 under Issue No.2 & 3, learned
Tribunal has discarded the liability of the insurer despite having
insurance, on the ground that the engine number mentioned in the
policy vis-à-vis in the R.C. book does not tally. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal refused to saddle the liability on the insurer by
holding that the vehicle was not validly insured.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the insurer that
such plea has not been taken by the owner before the learned
Tribunal to say if the same is a typographical error. So, no
illegality has been committed on the part of the learned Tribunal
to exonerate the insurer from the liability.
6. Having heard both parties and upon perusal of the impugned
judgment, it is seen that the only ground of exonerating the
insurer from the liability as per the discussion of the learned
Tribunal is at para-9 of the impugned judgment. This reveals that
in the policy, the engine number of the offending vehicle has
been mentioned as 'AAD37755', but in the R.C.Book (Ext.B),
the same is mentioned as 'A4D37755', and in view of such
discrepancy noticed by him, the learned Tribunal held that
Respondent No.5-Insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the
owner as the engine number of the offending vehicle is not
insured with the Insurance Company.
7. The receipt of premium from the owner is not disputed by the
insurer. The insurance policy as filed under Ext.A is a document
issued by the Insurance Company. The discrepancy is with regard
to the middle letter 'A' and '4'. The same appears as a
typographical error keeping in view the undisputed fact of receipt
of premium for the policy in respect of the offending vehicle to
which chassis number is not disputed. It needs to be mentioned
here that the chassis number of the offending vehicle as described
in the policy and the R.C. book is not disputed. Thus the finding
of the learned trial court to exonerate the insurer from the liability
is not found justified. Accordingly, the direction of the learned
Tribunal to the owner to pay the compensation by exonerating the
Insurance Company (Respondent No.5) is set aside.
8. In the result, the Insurance Company-Respondent No.5 is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the
learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today;
whereafter the same shall be disbursed by the learned Tribunal in
favour of the claimant in terms of its order.
9. The appeal is disposed of.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
