Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Smt.Sakuntala Rout And Others on 19 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.17 of 2015
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr.R.C.Sahoo-1, Advocate
-versus-
Smt.Sakuntala Rout and others .... Respondents
Mr.B.Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
19.10.2022
Order No.
13. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Singh, learned counsel for the Insurer-Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
3. Present appeal by the injured-Appellant is directed
against the judgment dated 12th September, 2014 of the IIIRD
MACT, Balasore in M.A.C Case No.140/66 of 2013 of 2011,
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- has been
granted along with interest @7.5% 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 dated 9th January,
2011.
4. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Insurer submits that,
first of all, death of the deceased involving the offending vehicle
is doubtful and secondly, the quantum of compensation is
excessive due to application of wrong multiplier. Misc. Case
No.26 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant praying to adduce
additional evidence. Through additional evidence, the copy of
final form submitted by the police in the concerned police case is
sought to be adduced to support the contention about non-
involvement of the offending vehicle. In the Final Form, police
has stated that no clue could be found regarding involvement of
the alleged offending vehicle in the accident.
5. It needs to be mentioned here that, the final form
submitted by the police in a police case has no evidentiary value
in connection with a claim application filed under the M.V.Act.
Secondly, it is seen from the contents of the final form that police
has concluded about 'no clue' in absence of any eyewitness of the
accident, which cannot be considered as a valid reason. Thus, it is
held that copy of the charge-sheet sought to be adduced through
additional evidence is of no help to the Insurer to improve its
case.
6. It is further seen that the Insurer did not adduce any
evidence before the Tribunal to support any of their stand.
Therefore, based on the mere statement made in the final form of
the police, eyewitness evidence of P.W.2 cannot be disbelieved to
make out a case in favour of the Insurer.
7. Two witnesses have been examined from the side of
the claimants and among them, P.W.2 is the eye-witness. He has
categorically said to have seen the accident when the offending
vehicle i.e., Bus bearing Registration No.OR-01D-3507 dashed
the deceased from the behind, who was going by riding the
bicycle. As a result of the accident the deceased fell into the river
and died. The postmortem report under Ext.5 justifies the cause
of death due to a motor vehicular accident. Therefore no reason is
seen in support of the contention of the Insurer to disbelieve the
claim of the applicants regarding death of the deceased due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. Next coming to the contention with regard to quantum
of compensation, it is submitted by Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for
the Insurer that, the deceased was aged about 52 years on the date
of accident. He has no material to support his contention. On the
other hand it is seen that the Tribunal by taking the age of the
deceased as 49 years has applied multiplier 13 to determine the
loss of dependency. Such findings of the Tribunal regarding the
age of the deceased is getting support from the statement
recorded in the P.M. report under Ext.5. Therefore the contention
of the Insurer to the contrary is rejected.
9. No further ground is seen to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the Tribunal granting compensation to the
claimants.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Insurer is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with
interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months from
today as per its direction, which shall be disbursed to the
claimants on the same terms and proportion contained in the
impugned award.
11. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with
accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application
and on production of proof of deposit of the award amount before
the learned Tribunal.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
