Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Susanta Bhoi And Other on 26 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.10 of 2022
The Divisional Manager, M/s. National
Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Susanta Bhoi and Other .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Nayak, counsel for Respondents 1&2
Mr.
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
26.10.2022
Order No.
04. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the insurer-
Appellant and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the claimant -
Respondents 1&2.
3. Notice on the owner - Respondent No.3 is treated sufficient in
view of the paper publication. No one appears on call for Respondent
No.3.
4. Present appeal by the insurer is against the impugned judgment
dated 5th August, 2021 of the learned 3rd MACT, Talcher passed in
MAC Case No.47 of 2019 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.9,77,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e. 20th April, 2019 has been granted
on account of death of deceased Hemanta Bhoi in the motor vehicular
accident dated 8th November, 2018.
5. Mr. Dasmohapatra contends that since the present offending
motor cycle bearing registration number OD 35C 4187 is involved in
more than one accident cases therefore, involvement of the same in
the present accident is doubtful.
6. It reveals from paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that the
offending motor cycle was involved in many accidental cases at
different places. However, the learned tribunal has rejected the
contention of the insurer regarding non-involvement of the offending
motor cycle in the accident.
7. Admittedly, the insurer has not adduced any evidence to satisfy
non-involvement of the offending motor cycle in the present accident,
except making contention to the effect that the motor cycle is involved
in many other accidental cases. This does not satisfy the standard of
proof required and the tribunal has thus rightly held that the burden is
on the insurer to disprove the contention of the claimant regarding
non-involvement of the offending motor cycle in the accident. The
insurer having not discharged the burden satisfactorily, no point is
made out in favour of the insurer to disbelieve the claim of the
applicants. As such, the contention raised by the Appellant is rejected.
8. With regard to quantum of compensation no further dispute
being raised, the direction of the tribunal is confirmed. It needs to be
mentioned here that the contention of the insurer with regard to
dependency of the claimants has no merit in view of the principles
decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Birender and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 356.
9. At this stage Mr. Nayak, learned counsel submits that the
claimant - Respondent No.2, Prasanta Bhoi, died in the meantime on
19th April, 2022 and a copy of the death certificate is filed by Mr.
Nayak. The same is kept on record. It is further submitted that there
being no other LRs except Respondent No.1, no further substitution is
required. Accordingly, the name of Respondent No.2 is deleted.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the insurer - Appellant
is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount along with
interest before the tribunal within a period of two months from today,
where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant -
Respondent No.1, namely Susanta Bhoi on such terms and proportion
to be decided by the learned tribunal.
11. The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant before
this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant 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
