The D.M. vs Sambhunath Barik And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8597 Ori

                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                       MACA No.435 of 2021
                                The D.M., M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. ....            Appellant
                                Ltd.
                                                                   Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
                                                          -versus-
                                Sambhunath Barik and another           ....       Respondents
                                                 Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1

                                            CORAM:
                                            JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                                           ORDER

04.08.2023 Order No.

10. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-claimant.

2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2021 of the learned MACT-III, Bhadrak in M.A.C. No.34 of 2015, wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,44,020/- along with interest @7% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.17.03.2015 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 30.01.2015.

3. Mr. P.K.Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the claimant is the son of the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the deceased. It is further contended by Mr. Mahali that the claimant being now getting into the shoe of the owner upon his death, is not entitled for compensation.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Aug-2023 10:05:50

4. The facts as seen from the record are to the effect that the deceased is the wife of the owner-cum-driver. During pendency of the appeal, the owner Respondent No.2 died. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 was substituted as LR of the owner by order dated 26.10.2022 of this Court. Therefore, now the claimant has become the owner of the offending vehicle upon death of Respondent No.2 and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation. It is settled that third party compensation cannot be awarded in favour of the owner of offending vehicle.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and it is held that the claimant-Respondent No.1 is not entitled for any compensation.

6. The statutory deposit made before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Aug-2023 10:05:50