The Divisional Manager vs Narayana Gouda And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4457 Ori

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                       MACA No.1411 of 2016
                 The Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz
                 General Insurance Company Ltd.             ....                  Appellant
                                                                 Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
                                                 -versus-
                 Narayana Gouda and Others                  ....               Respondents
                                        Mr. K. Panigrahi, counsel for Respondents 1 & 2

                            CORAM:
                            SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                           ORDER

26.4.2023 Order No.

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

2. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the insurer - Appellant and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for claimant - Respondents 1 & 2.

3. Present appeal by the insurer - Appellant is directed against the impugned judgment dated 5th May, 2014 of learned 3rd MACT, Bhanjanagar passed in MAC Case No.3 of 2008, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 25th February, 2008 has been granted on account of death of deceased Pandaba Gouda in the motor vehicular accident dated 12th November, 2007.

4. Mr. Khan submits that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect of the offending vehicle, i.e. Tractor and Trolley bearing registration number OR-07-M-7258 and OR-07-M-7259.

5. According to the claimants the deceased was standing on the left side of the road when he was hit by the offending vehicle from behind being driven rash and negligently. The witnesses examined on behalf of the insurer, viz., O.P.W.1 is admittedly not an eye witness. Though the copies of the police papers have been relied on by the insurer to contend that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle but the same cannot be accepted in evidence against the contention of the claimants as the evidence of the eye-witness (P.W.2) is not sufficiently rebutted in his cross-examination. Keeping in view the clear statement of eye witness (P.W.2), it is concluded that the deceased was not a passenger of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As such the contentions raised by the Appellant - insurer is rejected.

6. On the question of quantum of compensation, no merit is seen in favour of the insurer to interfere with the same. Accordingly the amount determined by the Tribunal is confirmed.

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the insurer - Appellant is directed to deposit entire compensation before the tribunal along with interest as per its direction, within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant- Respondents on the same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

8. The statutory deposit made by the appellant - insurer before this court along with accrued interest thereof be refunded on proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the tribunal.

9. The copies of depositions as produced by Mr. Panigrahi in course of hearing are kept on record.

10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda