Ansuman Sahu vs Tapaswini Sahu & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3572 Ori

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     MACA No.1164 of 2016

                 Ansuman Sahu                                ....        Appellant
                                                        Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Tapaswini Sahu & Ors.                       ....      Respondents
                                                             Mr.P.Sinha, Advocate
                                                             Mr.J.Sahu, Advocate

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

17.04.2023 Order No.

10. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurer-Respondent No.2 and Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent.

3. Present appeal by the Owner is directed against judgment dated 30th July, 2016 of Additional District-cum-Judge 3rd MACT,Bargarh, in MAC Case No.149/44 of 2012-15, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6,54,600/- 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 on 31st October, 2012.

4. Mr.Mishra submits on behalf of the Appellant that the Tribunal has illegally exonerated the Insurer from liability for non-availability of permit in respect of the offending vehicle.

5. The offending vehicle is the Truck bearing registration No. OR- 17-8161. The owner has examined one witness viz. O.P.W.1, to substantiate his stance that the vehicle at the time of accident was going to the garage for repairing and admittedly the same was not loaded with any goods.

6. Section 66(3) of the MV Act prescribes that no permit is required if the vehicle is proceeding empty or it is moving for the purpose of repairing. Here the validity of insurance policy of the vehicle on the date of accident remains unquestioned. So, when it is established through evidence that movement of the vehicle was not for any other purpose than for repairing, mere absence of permit would not attract violation of policy conditions. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is set aside and it is held that the Insurer - Respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the owner for the compensation amount.

7. On the question of quantum of compensation, it is submitted on behalf of the Appellant as well as the Insurer that the rate of interest granted on the compensation amount may be reduced to 6%. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the Claimants agrees for the same. Accordingly, the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is confirmed with reduced rate of interest of 6%.

8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.4 to deposit the compensation of Rs.6,54,600/- (Six lakhs fifty four thousand six 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.

9. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application.

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

S.Das