Orissa High Court
The Manager (Legal) vs Bishnupriya Nayak And Others on 4 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.12 of 2020
The Manager (Legal), IFFCO-TOKIO
General Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Bishnupriya Nayak and Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, counsel for Respondents 1-4
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
4.8.2022
Order No.
06. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the insurer -
Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for claimant -
Respondents 1-4.
3. Present appeal by the insurer is against the impugned judgment
dated 28th June, 2019 of the learned Member, 2nd MACT (Southern
Division), Berhampur, Ganjam passed in MAC Case No.2 of 2018
(141/2016-GDC) wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.57,76,400/-
along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 3rd May, 2016 has been granted on account of
death of the deceased Susanta Kumar Nayak in the motor vehicular
accident dated 11th April, 2016.
4. The challenges advanced on behalf of insurer are mainly on
two-folds. First, regarding contributory negligence on the part of the
rider of the motor cycle bearing registration number OD-07-6353 in
which the deceased was a pillion rider, and Secondly, the driving
licence of the accused driver of the offending truck was under
suspension on the date of accident.
5. Before proceeding further it needs to be mentioned at the outset
that date of accident is 11th April, 2016 and it was the result of front
collusion between two motor cycles with the offending truck bearing
registration number ORG-6865. In the accident one person died and
two persons injured including the present claimant - Respondent
No.1. Further, the validity of the insurance policy on the date of
accident in respect of the offending truck is not disputed.
6. Now coming to the first challenge as advanced by Mr. Khan for
the insurer, the same is not found with substance. It is for the reason
that for the mere reason that the accident was the result of front
collusion between the vehicles, it cannot be accepted that the drivers
of both the vehicles had contributed negligence. Rather it is brought
on evidence as per Ext.G, the certified copy of the spot map prepared
by police, adduced from the side of the insurer that the truck was
moving in the middle of the road and therefore the negligence is
entirely on the part of its driver. No flaw is seen in such conclusion
arrived by the tribunal since Ext.G is the sole basis of raising such
contention to contribute negligence on the part of the rider of the
motor cycle. Therefore, the contention as raised on behalf of the
insurer that the rider of the motor cycle was equally negligent in
causing the accident is rejected being without merit.
7. Next coming to the other contention that the driver of the
offending truck had no valid driving licence on the date of accident is
also not found sustainable in view of the detailed discussions made by
the tribunal at page 22 of the impugned judgment. Mr. Khan, learned
counsel emphasizes on Ext.B which is the certified copy of the D.L.
of the accused driver. Admittedly, it has been written at the foot of
said Ext.B that the licence was valid throughout the period except
from 25th June, 2015 to 4th April, 2016, which otherwise means that
the same is valid with effect from 11th February, 2011 till date except
that period from 25th June, 2015 to 4th April, 2016. Taking the date of
accident on 11th April, 2016, the D.L. of the accused driver is thus
treated valid on the date of accident. This has been discussed in detail
by the tribunal at page 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment. This
court confirms said finding of the tribunal in respect of validity of the
D.L. of the accused driver by rejecting the contentions raised by Mr.
Khan for the Appellant.
8. No dispute is raised with regard to quantum of compensation as
granted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no need
is there to interfere with the same.
9. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant - insurer
is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount of
Rs.57,76,400/- (fifty-seven lakh seventy-six thousand four hundred)
before the tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application, i.e. 3rd May, 2016 within a period of
two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant - Respondents 1 to 4 as per the terms and
proportions mentioned in the impugned judgment.
10. 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.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
