Divisional Manager vs Jayanti Patra And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12281 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      MACA No.1001 of 2017

                 Divisional Manager, United India
                 Insurance Company Ltd.                     ....          Appellant
                                                 Mr. Subrat Satpathy-1, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Jayanti Patra and Others                   ....       Respondents
                                   Mr. B. Singh, counsel for Respondent Nos.1-3

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

30.11.2021 Order No.

11. 1. Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for the claimants - Respondent Nos.1-

3.

2. The present appeal by the insurer has been directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 2017 of the learned 1st MACT, Balasore in MAC Case No.319 of 2013.

3. In the impugned judgment learned tribunal upon adjudicating the dispute has directed for payment of compensation of Rs.7,10,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 3rd September, 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant while advancing his challenge submits that the involvement of the offending vehicle, i.e. Ambassador car bearing registration No.OR 01 K 7875 in the accident is not established and as such the insurer is not liable to indemnify the

owner, particularly in view of the objection and denial on the part of the owner to that effect. Further, protest was raised on behalf of the insurer after submission of charge-sheet by police stating 'no clue' and based on such protest, cognizance was taken against the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment it reveals that under issue No.II, the Tribunal has discussed the contention raised by the owner as well as the insurer about involvement of the vehicle. The dispute arose due to wrong mentioning of the Registration number of the vehicle as OR 01 Q 7875 in the FIR. The contention of the Appellant that for denial by the owner regarding involvement of the vehicle in the accident and mentioning of a wrong registration number in the F.I.R. is sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the claimants that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident but has been subsequently planted, is not found acceptable on the evidentiary facts brought in course of trial. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the eye witnesses to the accident who have categorically stated to have seen the accident involving the Ambassador Car. When the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day soon after the accident and the recitals of the F.I.R. are clear regarding involvement of Ambassador Car to cause the accident, the case of the claimants cannot be disbelieved to exclude the vehicle from the accident. The learned Tribunal upon elaborate discussion of all such evidences brought on record has come to the conclusion that the vehicle, i.e. Ambassador car bearing registration No.OR 01 K 7875 was involved in the accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. Therefore narration of a wrong registration number in the F.I.R. or in the police report has hardly any bearing on the claim of the claimants. Accordingly the contention of the insurer on this score is rejected.

6. Next coming to the question of quantum of compensation as calculated by the learned Tribunal, the same is found without any error. The learned Tribunal by rejecting the contention of the claimants in absence of any specific proof, has determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,400/- and applied the multiplier taking into account his age as 45 years. Such calculation derived by the Tribunal is found with adequate support and accordingly no interference in the same is warranted.

7. However, the interest @ of 7.5% as directed by the learned tribunal needs to be reduced to 6% per annum.

8. In the result the Appeal is dismissed and the insurer - Appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount as per the direction of the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 3rd September, 2013. The said amount be disbursed to the claimants in the same proportion and terms as directed by the Tribunal.

9. The statutory deposit made by the appellant before this court along 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