Orissa High Court
Bidyut Bala vs Shri Bijan Mandal And Another on 8 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.211 of 2022
Bidyut Bala .... Appellant
Mr. S.B. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Shri Bijan Mandal and another .... Respondents
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
08.02.2023
Order No.
04. 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant-
claimant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company.
2. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment
dated 24.03.2021 of learned MACT, Malkangiri in M.A.C. No.07
of 2016, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation to the
tune of Rs.7,70,000/- along with interest @6% per annum to the
claimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.
19.05.2016 on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor
vehicular accident dated 20.3.2015.
3. Mr. S.B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant
questions sharing of 50% negligence on the injured himself for
the cause of accident. It is submitted by him that the driver of the
offending Bolero vehicle was entirely negligent for the cause of
accident. But learned Tribunal on the ground that the injured did
not have a driving license, attributed 50% negligence on him.
4. The facts of the case are that the injured while travelling in his
motorcycle, the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Registration
No.OD-30-6476 dashed it from the opposite direction being
driven in a rash and negligent manner. The injured examined
himself along with another witness to prove his contentions and
also relied on the Police papers. In his evidence, as P.W.1, the
injured-claimant has stated regarding negligence of the offending
Bolero vehicle and the same was left unassailed in his cross-
examination. Not a single question has been asked to him by the
insurer either to deny negligence on the part of the driver of the
Bolero vehicle or to attribute any negligence on the part of the
injured as driver of the motorcycle. Further, the Police upon
completion of investigation has submitted the charge-sheet
against accused driver of the Bolero vehicle for commission of
offences under Sections 279/337/338 I.P.C. P.W.2 has also
supported the evidence of P.W.1 by stating the same thing.
5. It is true that the injured did not have a valid driving license to
drive the motorcycle on the date of accident. But the same would
not bring any negligence per se on the injured. It is not correct to
opine that the driver is negligent for the accident for absence of
the driving license only. For absence of any driving license to
drive a motor vehicle, distinct offences and punishment would be
attracted as per the provisions contained in the M.V. Act.
6. In the case at hand, in absence of any material to reveal
negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and when
specific evidence has been brought on record that the driver of the
Bolero vehicle was completely negligent for the accident, the
conclusion of learned Tribunal to contribute 50% negligence on
the injured, only for absence of driving license, is unsustainable.
Accordingly, it is held that the driver of the Bolero vehicle is
completely negligent for the accident. As a consequence of the
same, since the validity of the insurance policy is left undisputed,
present insurer is found liable to indemnify the compensation
amount.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the insurer-Respondent
No.2 is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount
along with interest as determined by the learned Tribunal in the
impugned judgment within a period of two months from today,
which shall be disbursed in favour of the injured-claimant on such
terms and proportions to be decided by the learned Tribunal.
8. The copies of depositions and documents produced by Mr.S.B.
Das, learned counsel for the Appellant in course of hearing are
kept on record.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
