Divisional Manager vs Rangabati Mohanty And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7126 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  MACA No.421 of 2021
                 Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental
                 Insurance Company Ltd.                    ....                 Appellant
                                                Mr. Prakash Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
                                                -versus-
                 Rangabati Mohanty and Another             ....              Respondents
                                         Mr. K. Panigrahi, counsel for Respondent No.1

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                         ORDER

6.12.2022 Order No.

11. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the insurer - Appellant and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimant - Respondent No.1.

3. Present appeal by the insurer is against the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2021 of the learned 1st MACT, Cuttack passed in MAC Case No.627 of 2015, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 9th September, 2015 has been granted on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident dated 23rd April, 2015.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant that the offending vehicle was not initially mentioned in the F.I.R. but subsequently has been implanted in the police investigation report.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and copies of F.I.R. as well as other police papers, which are produced in course of hearing, reveal that P.W.2 - the informant has explained in his evidence that initially a wrong number was mentioned in the F.I.R. as he was not an eye witness of the accident and the same was subsequently corrected keeping in view the statement of the eye witnesses. Such explanation offered by P.W.2 is supported with police investigation report and undisputedly the accused driver of the offending motor cycle bearing registration number OD 33B 7260 has been charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 279/337/338 of the I.P.C. Conversely, no evidence has been adduced from the side of the insurer to dispute involvement of the offending motor cycle in the accident. So, no merit is seen in the contention of Mr. Mohanty, raised at this stage, to dispute about involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

6. The Appellant further disputes the quantum of compensation on the ground that the medical bills submitted regarding treatment of the injured in the hospital are not authentic. This contention is also found without merit in view of specific evidence given by P.W.3, the doctor of AIIMS Hospital. As per the injury report, the injured sustained injuries over his scalp, which was grievous in nature, and due to such injuries his treatment continues in different hospitals for quite a long period. The injured was first taken to DHH, Khurda, then to SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, thereafter he was taken to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and finally treated at AIIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar. There being no evidence produced by the insurer to rebut such evidence brought on record by the claimant regarding his treatment, the case of the claimant is found established in view of the

evidence brought through P.W.1, 2 and 3, supported by material documents. So no reason is seen to interfere with the impugned award, which is accordingly confirmed.

7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel does not press his cross- objection filed for enhancement of the compensation amount.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant - insurer is directed to deposit before the tribunal the entire award amount along with interest in terms of direction of the tribunal, within a period of two months from today where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant - Respondent No.1 on the same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

9. The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant before this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant on proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the tribunal.

10. The copies of depositions and exhibits, as filed by both parties in course of hearing, are kept on record.

11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda