Orissa High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Ranjulata Mandal And Others on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.169 of 2019
National Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. R.R. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Ranjulata Mandal and others .... Respondents
Mr. B. Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
06.12.2022
Order No.
08. 1. Heard Mr. R.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company and Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 24.09.2018 of learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore in M.A.C.
Case No.1624/2014, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,90,000/- has been granted along with interest @7.5% per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.8.9.2014 on account of death of the deceased in
the motor vehicular accident dated 01.06.2013.
3. The main contention raised by the Appellant is with regard to
negligence aspect. It is submitted that the driver of the offending
vehicle, i.e. motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-01-E-8555
was not found negligent in course of police investigation and
accordingly the final form was submitted stating no clue. But the
learned Tribunal based upon the order of cognizance taken by the
learned Magistrate in the criminal case has fixed negligence on
the driver. According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Appellant, such conclusion arrived by the Tribunal is erroneous.
It is further submitted that two petitions filed by the Appellant to
examine the Police Investigating Officer and the National
Highway Authority were also left unnoticed by the learned
Tribunal.
4. It is seen that the fact of taking of cognizance against the driver
of the offending motorcycle for commission of offences under
Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C., upon protest of the informant, is left
undisputed. Therefore, no merit is seen in the submission of the
Appellant either to find fault in the order of the learned Tribunal
fixing negligence on the accused-driver or to examine the I.O. in
support of such stand. Further, the I.O. has nothing to depose as
he has no direct knowledge about the cause of accident. The other
petition stated to have been filed praying to examine the National
Highway Authority is of course liable for rejection on the ground
that the same is non-specific. So, in either way, the Appellant has
no merit in its contention and the finding of the learned Tribunal
regarding fixation of negligence is confirmed.
5. With regard to the quantum of compensation, no apparent fault
is seen in the approach of the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has
proceeded taking Rs.5000/- as monthly income of the deceased
and applied the settled procedure to determine compensation
amount. Therefore, no more reason is seen to interfere with the
impugned award. However, the rate of interest is reduced to 6%
against the direction of the learned Tribunal for 7.5%.
6. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation
amount along with interest @ 6% per annum before the learned
Tribunal as per its direction within a period of two months from
today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on such terms and proportion to
be decided by the learned Tribunal.
7. 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.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
