The Branch Manager vs Deenabandhu Behera And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12834 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   MACA No.97 of 2010

            The Branch Manager,                        ....           Appellant
            Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                         Mr.S.Roy, Advocate
                                    -versus-
            Deenabandhu Behera and others              ....       Respondents
                                                        Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate

                         CORAM:
                         JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                       ORDER

14.12.2021 Order No.

10. 1. Heard Mr.Roy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Das, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondents.

2. The present appeal filed by the Insurer is directed against the judgment/award dated 6th October, 2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor-Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur in M.A.C.Case No.73 of 2007, wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e., 29th March, 2005 on account of death of the deceased in the accident dated 5th March, 2005.

3. Mr.Roy contends on behalf of the Appellant that the deceased was moving as gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle and as such the insurer is not liable to bear the compensation for the owner.

4. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was moving along with the goods i.e., fish in the offending vehicle at the time

of accident. The claimants have substantiated their case by examining the eyewitnesses. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as the owner of the goods at the time of accident being duly established on record through adequate evidence, no fault is seen in approach of the learned Tribunal in granting compensation in favour of the claimants and saddling the liability on the insurer.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that in absence of any documentary proof with regard to owner of the fish in support of the deceased, the insurer is to be exonerated from its liability is rejected for abundance in oral evidence.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

7. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant be refunded to him on proper application on production of proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal.

( B.P. Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal