Orissa High Court
Branch Manager vs Haribala Hontal And Another on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.239 of 2003
Branch Manager, now represented by
duly constituted Attorney, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Company Ltd.
Mr. P. Sinha, Advocate
-versus-
Haribala Hontal and Another .... Respondents
Mr. K.K. Das, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
8.9.2022
Order No.
06. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P. Sinha, learned counsel for the insurer-Appellant
and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
3. Despite service of notice was made sufficient on Respondent
No.1, she did not enter appearance in the present appeal. This court,
by order dated 7th July, 2022 has further directed to serve another set
of notice on Respondent No.1-claimant through I.I.C., Orkel P.S.
4. Mr. Das, learned ASC submits upon instructions that notice has
been served through police on Respondent No.1, namely Haribala
Hantal on 10th August, 2022.
5. No one has entered appearance for said Respondent No.1 till
date.
6. Present appeal by the insurer is against the impugned judgment
dated 23rd December, 2002 of the learned 4th MACT, Malkangiri
passed in MJC No.41 of 1999 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,11,100/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e. 5th January, 1998 has been granted
on account of death of deceased Arjuna Honta in the motor vehicular
accident dated 25th March, 1997.
7. Mr. Sinha contends on behalf of the Appellant that the
offending vehicle, i.e. Trax bearing registration number AP 31 G 9973
was not having valid insurance policy covering the risk on the date of
accident on 25th March, 1997. As per him the policy was 'Act-Only'
policy covering limited liability.
8. As seen from the impugned judgment, the limited liability of
the policy to cover third parties only being it an "Act-only" policy is
not disputed. It is also admitted case of the claimant that the deceased
was moving as an occupant in the offending vehicle at the time of
accident which dashed against a road side tree. The status of the
offending vehicle as a private vehicle is also not disputed. The law has
been well settled on this point in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Sudhakaran K.V. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2729, New India
Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others, 2009 (2)
SCC 417 and National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 731.
9. In view of the discussions made above and for such limited
nature of liability of the insurance policy, the insurer is bound to be
exempted from the liability and the finding as well as direction of the
tribunal to the contrary is set aside. However, the claimant is at liberty
to realize the compensation amount from the owner in accordance
with law.
10. The statutory deposit made by the appellant before this court
along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant - insurer on
proper application.
11. With aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed
of as allowed.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
