Orissa High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Jubati Nayak And Others on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1103 of 2016
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
represented through its Manager & .... Appellant
Officer-in-Charge, Legal Cell,
Cantonment Road, Cuttack
Ms. Nibedita Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Jubati Nayak and Others .... Respondents
Mr. B.N. Rath, counsel for Respondents 1 to 3
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
6.2.2023
Order No.
10. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the insurer -
Appellant and Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for claimant -
Respondents.
3. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against impugned
judgment dated 7th May, 2016 of learned 3rd MACT Nayagarh passed
in MAC No.21 of 2011, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.6,98,160/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e. 30th March, 2011 has been granted
on account of death of deceased Sahadev Nayak in the motor
vehicular accident dated 15th February, 2003.
4. It is seen that the accident took place on 15th February, 2003
and the same claimants filed MAC No.192 of 2003 under Section 166
of MV Act before learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar claiming
compensation upon death of the deceased, namely Sahadev Nayak in
the same accident. Said claim application was disposed of by learned
3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar on 6th April, 2010 with Nil award. The
operational portion of the award is as follows:-
"The claim application is dismissed on contest against
O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against O.P. No.1 granting nil
award in favour of the petitioners."
5. Thereafter second claim application was filed by the same
claimants against the death of same deceased on 30th March, 2011
(same accident) before learned 3rd MACT, Nayagarh.
6. The tribunal at Nayagarh allowed the second claim application,
i.e. MAC No.21 of 2011, filed under Section 166 of the MV Act and
directed for payment of compensation. The tribunal rejected the
contention of the insurance company with regard to maintainability of
the second claim application on the ground that the order passed by
learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in the earlier application will neither
operate as res judicata nor will create a bar for maintaining further
claim application. This reasoning observed by the tribunal is not
proper. After disposal of the first claim application by order of 'nil
award' second claim application is not maintainable in respect of
same cause of action at any circumstance since this goes against the
principles of fair procedure. In such situation the only option open for
the claimants is either to challenge the direction of the tribunal in
appropriate forum or to opt for review of the same subject to
satisfaction of the requirements. As such, this court fails to appreciate
the reasoning assigned by learned tribunal and the same is interfered
with.
7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is
set aside. However, since the claim of compensation under the MV
Act is a beneficial legislation, liberty is granted in favour of the
claimants, as prayed by Mr. Rath on their behalf, to approach
appropriate forum to challenge the earlier award dated 6th April, 2010
passed by learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar.
8. The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant before
this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant on
proper application.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
