Orissa High Court
Authorized Signatory vs Bishnu Priya Sahoo And Others on 12 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.514 of 2018
Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Allianz .... Appellant
General Insurance Company Limited
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Bishnu Priya Sahoo and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
12.10.2022
Order No.
10. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 11.12.2017 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Jajpur in M.A.C. No.43
of 2009 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.14,91,199/- has
been granted along with interest @7.5% per annum to the
claimants from the date of filing of the claim application,
i.e.23.06.2009 on account of death of the deceased in the motor
vehicular accident dated 25.11.2008.
3. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance
Company contends that the offending vehicle, i.e. Tata Pick-up
Van bearing Registration No.OR-04-F-7067 is not involved in the
accident and secondly, the death of the deceased is not
established arising out of the injuries sustained in the accident.
4. In this regard, Mr. Khan relies on Ext. B/2 and B/3. He further
submits that since the deceased died after more than one and half
years of the alleged accident, the cause of death cannot be
attributed to the injuries sustained.
5. Coming to deal with fist contention regarding non-involvement
of the offending vehicle, it is seen that the contents of Ext. B/2 &
B/3 have been discarded by learned Tribunal for want of proof.
Those documents were neither true copies nor certified copies,
and the authors of those documents were not examined on behalf
of the insurer. So what is suggested from contents of such
documents that another motorcycle dashed against the motorcycle
of the deceased has been correctly discarded by learned Tribunal.
It is needless to observe that a record keeper is not the authorized
person to prove the contents of the documents and he cannot be
substituted for the author. The standard of proof in respect of
documentary evidence as enumerated in the Indian Evidence Act
being not satisfied, no fault can be found in the approach of the
Tribunal rejecting the contention of the insurer. For the same
reasons, this Court also rejects the contention of Mr. Khan to
disbelieve the claim of the claimants.
6. Coming next contention that the death of the deceased is not
connected to the nature of injuries sustained in the accident, the
same has also been elaborately dealt by the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment. The findings given the post mortem report
(Ext.9) towards cause of death of the deceased are due to comma
for removal of right temporal lobe and parietal lobe of the brain.
The nature of injury as evinced from Ext.3, the injury report,
undisputedly suggests about injury to the head in the accident.
Considering the gravity of said injury and the finding in the post
mortem examination and continuous treatment of the deceased till
his death as seen from the treatment papers supported with oral
evidence, justifies the conclusion of the Tribunal to opine that the
death is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore no
merit is seen in the contention of the insurer to disbelieve the
same.
7. Next coming to the quantum of compensation, considering all
such grounds, a modified compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- along
with 6% interest is proposed to the parties in course of hearing.
Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 agrees to the same and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned
counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to the
discretion of the Court. The compensation amount is accordingly
fixed to that extent.
8. In the result, the Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- (rupees
fourteen lakhs) before the Tribunal along with interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.
23.06.2009 within a period of two months from today; where-
after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on
such terms and proportion to be fixed 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.
10. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
