Orissa High Court
Icici Lombard G.I.Co. Ltd vs Unknown on 20 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.1387 OF 2015
From the Judgment / Order dated 06.07.2015 passed by
the learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T, Keonjhar in
M.A.C Case No.48 of 2010.
ICICI Lombard G.I.Co. Ltd. :::: Appellant.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Gitanjali @ Gita Nayak & Others :::: Respondents.
Appeared in this case by Video Conferencing Mode /
Hybrid Mode.
For Appellant :::: Mr. Jayasankar Mishra,
Advocate
For Respondents :::: Mr. L.B. Bhuyan,Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
.........
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.SATAPATHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing- 11.04.2022:: Date of Judgment-. 20.04.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
B.P.Satapathy, J. Heard Mr. Jayashankar Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. Bhuyan,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-company
challenging the award dated 6.7.2015 passed by the
learned District Judge-cum- 1st MACT, Keonjhar in
MAC Case No.48 of 2010.
// 2 //
3. Learned Tribunal after hearing the matter allowed the
petition by directing the appellant-company to pay
compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- along with interest @6%
per annum payable from the date of application till its
payment.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-company brought to the notice of this Court
that even though by the time the accident took place on
2.9.2009, the vehicle in question belonging to
Respondent No.4 was transferred in favour of
Respondent No.3, but the said fact was never intimated
to the appellant-company. Accordingly, Mr. Mishra
argued that in view of such transfer of the vehicle
without prior notice to the company, direction of the
learned Tribunal to pay the compensation is illegal.
5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant-respondent while supporting the award
argued that even if the vehicle in question, as alleged,
was transferred in favour of Respondent No.3 by the
insurer Respondent No.4, but the appellant-company is
liable to pay the compensation and the same is settled
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Firdus Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
And Others reported in 2017(4) TAC 698 S.C.
6. In the aforesaid decision, Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation,
even though the vehicle in question has already been
sold out, by the time the accident took place.
// 3 //
Accordingly, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the
Respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the considered opinion that by the time the
accident took place on 2.9.2009, the vehicle in question
was duly insured with the appellant-company and the
policy was in force. Even if the vehicle was transferred
by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.3, but in view of
the decision relied upon by Mr. Bhuyan, the Appellant-
company is liable to pay the award.
8. Since the factum of transfer was not intimated
to the appellant-company, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel
for the appellant-company further argued that learned
Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not
granted the right of recovery as against the owner. In
view of such submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and the ground taken by the
appellant-company in the present appeal, this Court
when came to a conclusion that the appellant-company
will be liable to pay compensation amount of
Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application i.e. 7.4.2010 till its
realization. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1 supported the siad view of this Court.
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-
company left the aforesaid view to the discretion of this
Court.
// 4 //
10. In view of such submission of the respective
counsel, this Court while disposing the appeal, directs
the appellant company to pay compensation amount of
Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only
along with interest @6% per annum payable from the
date of application i.e. 7.4.2010 till its realization
within a period of eight weeks from today.
11. Since the vehicle in question was transferred by
the insurer Respondent No.4 in favour of Respondent
No.3 without any intimation, this Court while directing
the appellant-company to pay the compensation
amount along with interest so assessed by this Court,
grant the right of recovery against Respondent Nos.3 &
4.
12. Since Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are not appeared
before this Court, this Court observe that if any such
application is filed by the appellant-company for
recovery of the compensation so paid in terms of the
order passed by this court, learned Tribunal while
deciding such application shall give reasonable
opportunity of hearing to Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and
proceed with the same in accordance with law.
13. It is further observed that only after payment of
the compensation amount along with interest so
assessed by this Court, within the time stipulated, the
appellant-company shall be permitted to take refund of
the statutory deposit along with accrued interest
// 5 //
thereon from the Registry of this Court on proper
identification.
14. The MACA is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 20th April, 2022/sangita
