Orissa High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rashmita Pattnaik And Others on 7 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.658 of 2019
National Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Rashmita Pattnaik and Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, counsel for Respondent Nos.1-3
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
07.01.2022
Order No.
06. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dash on behalf of Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned
Senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for the claimant - Respondent Nos.1-3.
2. The present appeal by the insurer is directed against the
judgment dated 27th March, 2019 of the learned District Judge-cum-1st
MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.74 of 2015.
3. Learned tribunal upon adjudicating the dispute has directed for
payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.29,51,320/-along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e. 19th May, 2015.
4. The case of the claimants is that, the deceased while returning
back to home after closing his shop, the offending truck bearing
Registration No.OR 04 6154 dashed him from behind causing his
death.
5. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the alleged truck
was not involved in the accident, but an unknown vehicle was
involved in the accident. This is apparent from the statement (Ext.D)
of the widow (P.W.1) recorded by the surveyor appointed by the
insurer as well as from the inquest report prepared by police marked
under Ext.C. It is thus submitted that the present insurer may be
unsaddled from the liability as the involvement of the alleged truck is
not established.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant - Respondents
submits in reply that such contention put-forth on behalf of the
Appellant with regard to Ext.C and Ext.D is unsustainable as Ext.D is
inadmissible in evidence and Ext.C has no credible evidentiary value.
It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal while computing the
quantum of compensation, has erroneously applied the multiplier '13'
instead of '14' and no amount towards loss of parental / filial
consortium has been granted in respect of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
7. Having heard both parties and upon perusal of the impugned
judgment it is seen that the statement of P.W.1 Rashmita Pattnaik
recorded by the Surveyor has been adduced in evidence as Ext.D and
the copy of the inquest report prepared by police has been marked
under Ext.C on behalf of the insurer. At column-9 in the copy of
inquest report under Ext.C it is mentioned that an unknown vehicle is
involved in the accident. But the person who has entered the said fact
in the inquest report at column 9 has neither been examined by the
insurer nor the said fact has been confronted to the eye witness
(P.W.2) examined on behalf of the claimants. Nevertheless, such entry
in the inquest report prepared by police in the given facts of the case is
not found trustworthy for want of adequate evidence. Similarly, the
statement of P.W.1 recorded by the insurer through its' Surveyor has
also not been confronted to P.W.1 in course of her cross-examination,
rather said P.W.1 has stated during her cross-examination that the
Surveyor has taken her signature on a blank paper which she gave in
good faith. Therefore such contents either under Ext.C or Ext.D as
relied on by learned counsel for the Appellant are without any
evidentiary value in the present case. In view of the above analysis the
evidence proposed through Ext.C and Ext.D cannot be accepted as
admissible to support the contention of the insurer. Accordingly the
contentions raised by the insurer in this regard are rejected.
8. Next coming to the submissions of the Claimant - Respondents
for enhancement of compensation amount, in absence of any appeal
preferred by them in that respect, no relief can be granted in their
favour.
9. No merit is seen in the challenge of the insurer with regard to
the amount of compensation. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
However, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% from 7.5%.
10. The insurer - Appellant is directed to deposit the entire award
amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application, i.e. 19th May, 2015 before the tribunal within
eight weeks from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant - Respondents in the same proportion and
terms as directed by the learned Tribunal.
11. 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.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
