Orissa High Court
Sriram General Insurance Company vs Kamini Munda And Others on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.430 of 2022
Sriram General Insurance Company
Limited .... Appellant
Mr.G.P.Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Kamini Munda and others .... Respondents
Mr.R.Behera, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
11.4.2023
Order No.
4. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurer and Mr.Behera, learned counsel for claimants-
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5.
3. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the
judgment dated 25th April, 2022 of Second Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in M.A.C. Case
No.119 of 2013 (Sambalpur), wherein compensation to the tune
of Rs.11,16,200/- has been granted along with interest @6% 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 on 1st May, 2013.
4. Mr.Dutta submits that the deceased was travelling in
the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor and Trolley bearing Registration
No.OR-15K-3172 & OR-15K-3173 as a gratuitous passenger
sitting on the mudguard.
5. As seen from the record, the Insurer has examined their
Assistant Manager (Legal) as O.P.W.1. He has admitted during
his the cross-examination that seating capacity of the offending
vehicle is two including the driver. The claimants' case is that the
deceased was a labourer in respect of the offending vehicle and
he was travelling in the same as such at the time of accident. This
is not refuted by O.P.W.1 though it is contended that the deceased
was a gratuitous passenger in respect of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, no merit is seen in the contention advanced by the
Appellant not to treat the deceased as a labourer of the offending
vehicle.
6. With regard to quantification of compensation amount,
the Tribunal by assessing the income of the deceased at the
minimum wage rate prevalent on the date of accident has
computed the compensation amount by adopting all settled
procedures. No flaw is seen therein to interfere with the same.
7. It is further contended that the offending vehicle did
not have a valid permit on the date of accident and in respect of
the same a copy of the information obtained under the R.T.I. Act
under Ext.B & B/1 has been relied on. However, perusal of copy
of Ext.B & B/1 does not reveal anything to conclusively opine
that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit. At the
same time the owner did not come to contest and remained silent.
So in the circumstances, right of recovery is extended in favour of
the Insurer subject to proof of absence of permit in respect of the
offending vehicle on the date of accident.
8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction
to the Insurer-Appellant to deposit entire compensation amount of
Rs.11,16,200/-(Eleven lakhs sixteen thousand two hundred) along
with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application 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.
As stated earlier, the right of recovery is extended in
favour of the Insurer.
9. 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.
10. Copies of evidence of O.P.W.1 and Ext.B & B/1
produced in course of hearing are kept on record.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
