United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt.Reddy Gangamma And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12976 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                                   MACA No.1031 of 2006


            United India Insurance Co. Ltd.             ....         Appellant
                                                     Mr.S.K.Mohanty, Advocate

                                          -versus-

            Smt.Reddy Gangamma and others      ....         Respondents
                           Mr.P.K.Behera, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                         CORAM:
                         JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                       ORDER

20.12.2021 Order No.

13. 1. Heard Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Behera, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal by the Insurer is against the judgment dated 17th July, 2006 passed by the learned IIIrd M.A.C.T., Rayagada in M.J.C.No.279 of 1998, wherein a sum of Rs.2,06,000/- has been granted as compensation for death of the deceased along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e., 23rd December, 1997.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the owner of the offending vehicle though has been served with notice, but did not choose to contest the claim and as such, he being failed in his duty to produce valid insurance certificate and

valid driving license of the driver, the insurer is not liable to bear the compensation on behalf of the owner.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the claimant and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that at paragraph-8, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue and stated that as per the certified copy of the seizure list, the cover note of the insurance certificate has been mentioned, which is valid up to 6th November, 1997. Similarly, the D.L. was seen valid up to 4th January,1998. Accordingly, considering the date of accident on 11th October, 1997, the learned Tribunal by holding that the offending vehicle having valid insurance on the date of accident as well as the driver having valid D.L. on the date of accident directed to bear the compensation by the insurer on behalf of the owner.

5. Admittedly, the present Appellant-insurer has though contested in the claim application before the learned Tribunal, but did not choose to adduce any evidence to rebut the claim of the claimant either on validity of the insurance policy or the driving license.

6. Keeping in view of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the M.V.Act, the entire contention raised by the Appellant that the owner is at fault in not contesting the case to exonerate the insurer from bearing the liability in terms of the contract is rejected.

7. This being the limited challenge advanced by the Appellant, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the discussions made above.

8. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

9. 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