Manoranjan Sahu vs Gouri Sankar Sahu And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 10298 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  MACA No.775 of 2017
                 Manoranjan Sahu                             ....         Appellant
                                                        Mr. P. K. Mishra, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Gouri Sankar Sahu and Another               ....      Respondents
                                   Mr. S. Satpathy, counsel for Respondent No.2

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

29.8.2023 Order No.

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

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the injured - claimant - Appellant and Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the insurer - Respondent No.2.

3. Present appeal by the injured - claimant is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2017 of learned 2nd MACT (Southern Division), Berhampur, Ganjam passed in MAC Case No.60/2016 (164/2016-GDC), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 21st June, 2016 has been granted on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident dated 10th May, 2016.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits on behalf of the Appellant that learned tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts of the case properly and illegally exonerated the insurance company from its liability.

5. The accident took place on 10th May 2016 while the injured - claimant was proceeding by riding his motor cycle and on the highway the offending vehicle, i.e. car bearing registration number OR-07-AA-3334 dashed it from front. The tribunal upon adjudication attributed 50% negligence on the injured and directed the owner to pay 50% of the compensation amount. The insurance company was absolved from the liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license.

6. Admittedly, the police upon completion of investigation have submitted the charge-sheet against the accused driver Siba Shankar Sahu @ Jaga for commission of offences under Sections 279/337/338 of the I.P.C. But there was a discrepancy in the charge-sheet. The name of Siba Shankar Sahu has been mentioned as Gouri Shankar Sahu at column 11 of the charge-sheet, who is the owner of the vehicle. The tribunal taking note of the same held Gouri Shankar Sahu as the driver and accordingly absolved the insurer from the liability.

7. There is no dispute that Siba Shankar Sahu had valid driving license on the date of accident and it remains undisputed at the Bar that cognizance has been taken by the criminal court against Siba Shankar Sahu as the accused for alleged offences. Therefore such conclusion arrived by the tribunal to hold that the driver of the vehicle is Gouri Shankar Sahu, who did not have the driving license, is found

erroneous. The same is accordingly set aside. It is held that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Siba Shankar Sahu had a valid driving license on the date of accident. There being no dispute with regard to validity of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle, no reason is seen to absolve the insurance company from its liability.

8. So far as the contributory negligence attributed on the injured is concerned, the tribunal has also failed to appreciate the fact that the police upon completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending car alone for negligence to the cause of accident and the name of the injured was never stated as a contributor of negligence for the accident. Furthermore, the insurer did not adduce any evidence to attribute negligence on the injured nor did the owner come to dispute negligence on the part of its driver. As such, no justification remains on the part of the tribunal to attribute negligence on the injured other than the driver of the offending car entirely. Accordingly this court holds that the driver of the offending car was entirely negligent for causing the accident and consequently the owner is completely liable to pay the compensation amount.

9. The claimant sustained fracture injury on his right hand and underwent operation at MKCG Hospital twice. So, keeping in view his period of treatment and his avocation as a motor-mechanic, the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, payable along with interest @ 6% per annum.

10. In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer - Respondent No.2 to deposit enhanced compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) before the tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 21 st June 2016 within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the injured - claimant on such terms and proportion to be decided by the learned tribunal.

11. The copies of depositions and exhibits as produced by Mr. Mishra are kept on record.

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

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

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 30-Aug-2023 15:27:24