Orissa High Court
Pramila Sahu And Others vs Siba Prasad Sahoo And Another on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.90 of 2015
Pramila Sahu and Others .... Appellants
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Siba Prasad Sahoo and Another .... Respondents
Mr. S. Mallik, counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
17.11.2021
Order No.
10. 1. Heard Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimants -
Appellants and Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Insurer -
Respondent No.2.
2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment
dated 29th October, 2014 of learned 4th MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case
No.117 of 2008 / 189 of 2013. The learned Tribunal in the impugned
judgment has rejected the claim of compensation by the present
Appellants on the ground that they have failed to prove their case that
the deceased died in the accident in question.
3. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel submits on behalf of the
Appellants that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
evidence brought on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 and
the documents exhibited on their behalf. It is submitted that the fact of
treatment of the deceased Ranjan Kumar Sahoo is established from
Ext.7, which is the referral card of Purba Medinapur District Hospital.
Further, the involvement of the offending truck bearing Registration
No.OR 09 E 5292 in the accident is not disputed from the contents of
the F.I.R. in Panskura P.S. Case No.62 dated 23rd May, 2005. The
learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate such evidences adduced by
the claimants and rejected their case. In support of the contention Mr.
Panigrahi places reliance on several decisions viz. National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Sabita Barik and Others, 2012 (1) T.A.C. 183 (Ori);
Bimal Devi and Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Others , 2009 (2) T.A.C. 693 (S.C.); Jestine v. Prasad, (2014 (2)
T.A.C. 144 (Ker.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ananga Kumar
Otta and another, 2008 (II) OLR - 615; M/s. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others, 2004 (1) T.A.C. 366 (S.C.); Mataji
Bewa and Others v. Hemanta Kumar Jena and another, 1994 ACJ
1303; Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Berhampur v. Bhaiga Pradhan
and Others, 2004 (1) T.A.C. 670 (Ori.).
4. Conversely Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Insurer -
Respondent No.2 submits that the claimants have failed to prove the
death of the deceased on account of accident in question involving the
offending vehicle and the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the
case of the Appellants in absence of post mortem examination report
and police paper showing presence of the deceased as an occupant in
the vehicle and other materials.
5. It is seen from the impugned judgment that under Issue No.(I),
the Tribunal has framed the question that, whether the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-09E-5292 (Pickup
Van) resulting in death of deceased Ranjan Kumar Sahoo.
6. In course of discussion on that issue, it is observed by the
learned tribunal that no cogent evidence either documentary or oral
has been adduced to substantiate the claim advanced by the learned
counsel for the Claimant - Petitioners. It is also observed by the
tribunal that, in the instant case all that P.W.2 stated could have been
substantiated by documentary evidence if there was any iota of truth
in it. In absence of materials relating to engagement of P.W.2 as a
liaison agent, purchase of fruits, and considering his normal place of
abode both residential and business, he can be termed as a set witness.
Similarly it is further observed in respect of P.W.3 that, "he ought to
have authored the report or at least it is expected that before the F.I.R.
was lodged he was supposed to have been contacted to ensure the
number of passenger in the truck".
7. Admittedly the contents of F.I.R. in respect of the accident do
not mention the name of deceased Ranjan Kumar Sahoo either as an
occupant of the vehicle or a victim of the accident. The recitals of the
F.I.R. are specifically mentioning that the driver and helper were
injured in the accident. It is not the case of the claimants that the
deceased was either the driver or helper of the truck, but it is their
case that the deceased was an occupant of the truck as the owner of
goods at the time of accident. None of the police papers does reveal
anywhere about the presence of the deceased at the place of accident.
The contention that the deceased was an occupant of the vehicle is
found unacceptable on the face of the F.I.R..
8. The claimants did not produce any record showing cause of
death of the deceased nor was his dead body sent for post mortem
examination. The referral card issued under Ext.7 does not reveal any
source of information that Ranjan Kumar Sahoo sustained injuries due
to road traffic accident. Otherwise also Ext.7 does not establish any
connection of the injuries sustained by said Ranjan Kumar Sahoo to
the present accident and the vehicle in question.
9. So far the observation made by the learned Tribunal to
disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, this Court fully agrees with
the same. The cross-examination of the those witnesses speaks the
reason for itself.
10. The claimants have neither examined the owner of the truck nor
the informant nor the helper. They have also not taken any step to
bring the concerned investigating officer into the witness box. Thus,
learned tribunal has rightly observed that the claimants have failed to
bring on record sufficient evidence in support of their contention.
11. The decisions as cited by the counsel for the appellants will not
render any help to them in absence of proof of fact of involvement of
the deceased in the accident.
12. A thorough perusal of certified copies of the statements in
deposition of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as well as the exhibits marked on behalf
of the claimants, no reason is found in favour of the claimants -
Appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment.
13. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed being without merit.
14. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
