Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Chaitu Naik And Another on 24 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.780 of 2017
The Divisional Manager, National .... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. A.K. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Chaitu Naik and another .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
24.08.2022
Order No.
10. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for Respondent No.1-claimant.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 15.03.2017 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar in MAC Case
No.113 of 2011 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,79,800/- has been granted along with interest @7.5% per
annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.20.04.2011 on account of injury sustained in the
motor vehicular accident dated 25.12.2009.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant-insurer that the
offending vehicle, i.e. Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.OR-
09-D-6512 was not having a valid insurance policy on the date of
accident.
4. Upon hearing Mr. Roy and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that the learned Tribunal at paragraph 9 has
discussed about validity of the insurance policy in respect of the
offending vehicle and the onus on the insurer to disprove such
contention of the claimants. The learned Tribunal having detailed
the discussion on the same has concluded that the insurer having
been failed in discharging its onus to disprove the validity of the
insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to be
fastened with the liability.
5. Admittedly a specific policy number has been mentioned in
the claim application which according to the insurer was not a
valid number. It was contended by the insurer that such 19 digit
number was never issued for any insurance policy where all the
insurance policies are 20 digit numbers. The copy of the
insurance policy under Ext.A has been filed on behalf of the
insurer to suggest that such policy was not issued in respect of the
offending vehicle.
6. It is true that considering the status of the claimants, it cannot
be always expected on their part to bring definite evidence on the
validity of the policy in a motor accident compensation case. The
police investigation reveals that the policy issued by the National
Insurance Company Ltd. (the Appellant) was valid upto
14.3.2010 in respect of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is
obvious that such policy would have been issued on 15.3.2009
and thus it was incumbent upon the insurer to bring on record
positive evidence like the concerned register regarding issuance
of insurance policy from Baripada Branch on 15.3.2009. It would
have then satisfied the required onus on the insurer. But the
insurer has failed to bring any such positive evidence to disprove
the contention regarding valid insurance policy in respect of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, in the present facts of the case, the
reason assigned by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the
insure for their failure to discharge their onus cannot be faulted
with.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being without merit.
8. The Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount of Rs.2,79,800/- (rupees two lakhs
seventy-nine thousand eight hundred) before the Tribunal along
with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 20.04.2011 within a period of two months
from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of
the claimant on same terms and proportion as directed by the
Tribunal.
9. On deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal
and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund
application before this Court, the statutory deposit made before
this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the
Appellant-Insurance Company.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
