Orissa High Court
Manager vs Suryakanti Chhotray And Another on 26 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.252 of 2020
Manager, T.P. Cell, M/s. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate
-versus-
Suryakanti Chhotray and Another .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, counsel for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
26.4.2022
Order No.
06. 1. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant -
Respondent No.1 submits that he has already received the cost of
Rs.1000/- from Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Appellant.
2. Heard.
3. Present appeal by the insurer has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 18th May, 2019 of learned 3rd MACT, Cuttack passed
in MAC No.375 of 2013 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.17,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e. 2nd July, 2013 has been granted on
account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular
accident dated 1st October, 2012.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that involvement of
the offending vehicle in the accident is seriously disputed by the
owner. The owner who contested the claim has also given evidence to
that effect. Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case
and the specific evidence of the owner, the involvement of the
offending vehicle is not established and as such, the claimant is not
entitled for any compensation.
5. In response to the same, Mr. Mishra submits that though the
owner has denied about involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident, but admittedly he has been charge-sheeted in the police case.
His accusation in the police case being not questioned, his denial
before the learned Tribunal has no merit for consideration.
6. Upon hearing both parties and perusal of the impugned
judgment as well as certified copies of police papers and depositions
of witnesses as produced in course of hearing, it reveals that
admittedly Jankia P.S. Case No.189 dated 12th November, 2012 was
registered alleging offences under Section 279/337/338 of I.P.C.
against the owner and he has been charge-sheeted in the police report
as the accused driver. The offending vehicle is a Bolero bearing
registration number OR-02-AG-5257 and as per the case of the
claimant said vehicle dashed against her from behind at the relevant
time causing injuries while she was going in the bicycle on the
extreme left side of the road.
7. So far as the dispute relating to the involvement of the
offending vehicle is concerned, the lodging of F.I.R., submission of
charge-sheet by police accusing the owner-driver for the offences
stated above to stand his trial in criminal prosecution is not disputed.
The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 to support her contention that
the accident was caused by the offending vehicle driven by the owner
(present Respondent No.2). In support of her contention she relies on
the certified copies of the F.I.R., charge-sheet, injury report, etc. under
Exhibits-1 to 5.
8. On the other hand the owner examined himself as OPW-1 to
denies his involvement in the accident as well as the offending
vehicle. Admittedly, no document has been adduced by the owner -
OPW-1 in support of his contention, nor any other witness was
examined on his behalf. The fact of his accusation for criminal
prosecution as the accused driver of the offending vehicle remains
undisputed.
On examination of the evidence adduced from both the sides
with regard to the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle
therein, it is found that the evidence so adduced by the claimant as
P.W.1 is supported with written documents such as the F.I.R., charge-
sheet, etc under Exhibits-1 to 5. So as per the principles of
preponderance of probability, the evidence adduced on behalf of the
claimant is seen heavier than the denial evidence adduced by the
owner. As such, the finding of the learned Tribunal in accepting the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident with
negligence on the part of the owner - Respondent No.2 is found
justified and hence affirmed.
9. Next coming to see the grounds of challenge with regard to
quantum of compensation, the same are not found sufficient to
warrant any interference for the reason that the claimant is a young
girl aged about 18 years on the date of accident who admittedly
suffered permanent disability up to 40% and undergone treatment for
a period of 72 days as indoor patient to incur expenses thereof.
10. In the result, no merit is seen to interfere with the impugned
judgment which is confirmed in this appeal also. However, the rate of
interest is reduced to 6% from 7% and the penal interest at the rate of
18% is waived.
11. The appeal is dismissed. The insurer - Appellant is directed to
deposit the awarded compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- (seventeen lakh)
before the tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application, i.e. 2nd July, 2013 within a period of
two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant - Respondent No.1 on such terms and
proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.
12. 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.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
