Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mastram Dalpati And Another on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.86 of 2022
The Divisional Manager,
Mahindra Insurance Brokers Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr.P.K.Ray, Advocate
-versus-
Mastram Dalpati and another .... Respondents
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
6.12.2022
Order No.
5. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Ray, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurer.
3. None appears on call for the claimants-Respondents
No.1 & 2. Notice issued against them is treated sufficient in terms
of the provisions contained in Order 5 Rule 9 C.P.C.
4. Present appeal by the Appellant i.e., the Divisional
Manager, Mahindra Insurance Brokers Ltd. is directed against the
judgment dated 7th December, 2021 of the Additional District
Judge-Cum-III MACT, Dharmagarh, in MAC Case No.30 of
2018, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- has
been granted along with interest @6% per annum with effect
from the date of filing of the claim application on account of
death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 26th
December, 2016.
5. Mr.Ray contends that present Appellant is the broker
for M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Insurer. He
submits that the offending vehicle was allegedly insured with
M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., which was not
impleaded as a party before the Tribunal and instead of said
Insurer, present Appellant, who carries business of insurance
brokerage, has been impleaded and despite this was brought in
the written statement, the Tribunal ignored the same.
6. Before dealing with the contention of Mr. Ray, it needs
to be mentioned here that in the present appeal, the Appellant has
not impleaded M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. as a
party. However, on his oral prayer, said Insurer is added as
Respondent No.3. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel, who is present
in Court and usually appears for M/s. Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd. agrees to appear for it at the request of the
Court.
7. Mr. Ray is permitted to carry out the correction in the
cause title of the claim application in Court.
8. Mr. Dutta submits that M/s. Mahindra Insurance
Brokers Ltd. carries business of insurance brokerage and the said
agency is authorized to carry insurance brokerage business for
M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
9. It appears that the Tribunal under mistaken impression
has directed the present Appellant, who is an insurance
brokerage, to pay the compensation amount and the copy of
insurance certificate filed under Annexure-1 is clear to reveal that
insurance has been taken in respect of the offending vehicle by
M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. However, this Court
refrains itself from giving any opinion on the validity of such
insurance in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of
accident. In the circumstances, it is felt apposite to remand back
the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the claim
application after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
10. The impugned award is accordingly set aside and the
Appellant is directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 2nd
January, 2023 along with a certified copy of this order and the
Tribunal is also directed to proceed afresh by issuing notice to the
claimants as well as the owner and decide the claim application in
accordance with law afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to
all parties including grant of opportunity to implead the Insurer, if
necessary, as a party to the claim application
11. With aforesaid observation and direction the appeal is
disposed of.
12. The copy of the written statement filed by Mr. Ray in
course of hearing is kept on record.
13. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with
accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
