The Branch Manager vs Khagapati Bada Nayak And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11578 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                         MACA No.642 of 2012

                 The Branch Manager, M/s. Bajaj
                 Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.         ....           Appellant
                                                         Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Khagapati Bada Nayak and Another           ....      Respondents


                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                            ORDER

11.11.2021 Order No.

03. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant -Insurer.

2. The present appeal by the insurer is against the award dated 8th May, 2012 of learned Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Jeypore in MAC Case No.230 of 2010. Respondent No.1 who was the claimant before the Tribunal has been granted compensation of Rs.2,42,040/- along with 6% interest on account of his injuries sustained in the motor vehicular accident.

3. The injuries sustained by the claimant are fracture and dislocation of lumbar vertebra and backbone as well as dislocation of vertebra column. The claimant incurred medical expenses at different hospitals for a long period of time.

4. It is contended on behalf of Appellant - Insurer that the claimant was traveling in the goods vehicle as a labourer at the time of accident and as such, he is not covered under the insurance policy.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that Ext.B-1 (copy of the insurance policy) was issued covering the risk of two persons. Ext.B-1 further discloses about sitting capacity as two. But as per the oral evidence of O.P.W.2, the risk coverage was only for one person. This oral evidence of O.P.W.2 was disbelieved by the learned tribunal on the face of Ext.B-1.

6. Since the status of the insured claimant is not disputed as a labour, the contentions of the Appellant are not found acceptable on the face of Ext.B-1.

7. Moreover, the Appellant nowhere has stated in the grounds of the appeal memo answering the specific finding of the learned Tribunal made at page 9 and 10 of the impugned award with regard to covering two persons in the insurance policy, the sitting capacity as two in the offending vehicle as well as the status of the claimant as a labourer.

8. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9. The statutory deposit with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant - insurer on proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the tribunal.

10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda