Damayanti Sandha @ Sabar vs Jamuna Sabar & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5469 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               WP(C) NO.825 OF 2018

            Damayanti Sandha @ Sabar               ....               Petitioner

                                                         Mr.J.K.Panda, Adv.

                                        -versus-


            Jamuna Sabar & ors.                    ....        Opposite Party(s)

                                               Mr.S.K.Ghose, Adv. for O.P.4

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                      ORDER

12.10.2022 Order No.

04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. Even though copy of the notice has already been served on

the private O.Ps. appearing as Claimants in MAC No.11 of 2015,

none is appearing on their behalf. On perusal of both the claims of

petitioner it appears both the claim cases arise out of the same cause

of action involving an accident. One being filed by the Wife of the

deceased and the second one is filed by the parents of the deceased.

Both claim compensation involving the same cause of action. Issue

here confined only in respect of common trial of both cases and at

one common place.

// 2 //

3. In spite of service of notice, none is appearing for the private

O.Ps. However, there is appearance of Mr.S.K.Ghose, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company.

4. The Writ Petition involves a claim for trial of both MAC

Nos.11 of 2015 and 69 of 2016 either at Bolangir or Bargarh for

involvement of common issue. Further on the premises that the Wife

is a resident of Bargarh and seeks relief from this Court for a

direction for transfer of MAC No.11 of 2015 instituted in the district

of Bolangir to be tried together with MAC No.69 of 2016 at

Bargarh.

5. The Insurance Company being the common Party in both the

Cases, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that it

has filed an application challenging the maintainability of the

subsequent proceeding but pending for consideration.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and the

grounds seeking transfer of the proceeding at Bolangir to Bargarh,

this Court finds, both the litigations; one at the instance of the Wife

of the deceased aged about 31 years, whereas the first litigation

appears to have been instituted by the Parents of the deceased

appearing to be 57 & 61 years respectively by this time. Examining

the claim application involving the above two Cases, this Court

// 3 //

again finds, when the wife has filed the claim application, though

she did not make the father-in-law as party only making the mother-

in-law as party. Similarly the claim petition filed by parents also did

not involve the Daughter in law. Looking to the accident involved

and entitlement of the Parties, there may not be any dispute that a

question is ultimately required to be decided by the Tribunal on the

insurance entitlement of the Wife and the Parents-in-law as well. In

the interest of justice, both the matters should be heard at one place

to avoid repetition and complication in evidence and creating

confusion in ultimate trial of both the proceedings.

7. Considering the age of the Parents-in-law and the age of the

daughter-in-law involving both the litigations, this Court finds,

instead of asking the Parents-in-law, who are already aged enough to

come to attend the trial involving their case at Bargarh, further as

this Court finds, on parallel filing of claim case, there will also be

requirement of visiting of both sets of claimants to visit to the other

place for their evidence, it will be appropriate if the Wife since aged

about 31 years will be asked to appear in the Court at Bolangir also

to defend her case along with other case. As a consequence, this

Court entertaining the request of the Petitioner for trial of both the

cases together and while declining transfer of MAC Case No.11 of

// 4 //

2015 at the instance of the Parents to Bargarh, directs transfer of

MAC Case No.69 of 2016 at the instance of the wife from the Court

of District Judge-cum-MACT, Bargarh to the District Judge-cum-

MACT(1), Bolangir and further directs the District Judge-cum-

MACT, Bargarh to transmit the Case Records within ten days of

service of copy of this order. This Court further directs the District

Judge-cum-MACT, Bolangir to try both the Cases together with

common set of evidence, to avoid confusion in defence and in

deciding both the proceedings involved by the Claimants involved

therein by framing common issues and will be at liberty to pass a

common judgment but however at least within a period of four

months. Petitioner here undertakes to cooperate with the trial court

in the timely disposal of the proceedings involved.

8. As this Court finds, on the transfer of the proceeding to

Bolangir, the widow Wife will be compelled to travel to the Tribunal

at Bolangir on each date of posting and may be required to engage a

Counsel at Bolangir or to meet the travel expenses of her Counsel at

Bargarh for the purpose and keeping in view the unemployed status

of the Party, this Court directs, the Secretary, Legal Services

Authority at Bolangir to provide at least a sum of Rs.1500/- (rupees

one thousand five hundred) to the Wife, Petitioner herein on each

// 5 //

date of posting of the case but not exceeding for four dates. The

Secretary, Legal Services Authority at Bolangir is directed to deposit

the amount as directed at least one day prior to the next date of

posting and on filing of the appearance by the Advocate, the amount

will be released in favour of the Wife-Claimant.

9. The Petitioner is directed to serve a certified copy of this

order to the District Judge-cum-MACT, Bargarh and District Judge-

cum-MACT, Bolangir for their necessary action.

10. The Writ Petition succeeds but with the above directions.

11. Issue urgent certified copy.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K.Rout