M/S.New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Manjulata Behera And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1854 Ori

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       MACA No.1066 of 2017

                M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.        ....           Appellant
                                                Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
                                          -versus-
                Manjulata Behera and another            ....        Respondents
                              Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate for Respondent No.1
            .




                            CORAM:
                            JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                           ORDER

28.02.2023 Order No.

13. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-claimant.

2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against judgment dated 25.07.2017 of learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No.930 of 2006, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.2,93,800/- has been granted along with interest @7% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 23.12.2006 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 6.7.2005.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the deceased was not a labourer of the offending vehicle, i.e.Tractor Trolley bearing Registration No.OR-05-M-8561 and OR-05-M-8562. According to the Insurance Company, the deceased was a worker of the crusher unit and died as such while cutting stone.

4. It is seen that two witnesses were examined from the side of the claimants and one witness from the side of the owner. No evidence was adduced from the side of the Insurance Company. P.W.2 is an independent eye-witness examined from the side of the claimants and O.P.W.1 is another independent eye-witness examined from the side of the owner. According to P.W.2, the deceased was a labourer of the offending vehicle and he died due to fall from the vehicle and the vehicle ran over him. O.P.W.1 has stated that the deceased while cutting stone by cutter machine in the stone quarry, one stone fall over him causing his death. In view of such contrast statements of both those witnesses, it is relevant to refer the Police papers like FIR and the final report, etc. As seen from the contents of the FIR under Ext.1, the deceased died due to fall from the running vehicle while working as a labourer in the offending vehicle. The Police has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-driver of the offending vehicle for commission of offences under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C. The submission of charge-sheet against the accused-driver by the Police has never questioned by anyone. Therefore, the evidence adduced by P.W.2 which is corroborated by the statements made in the FIR as well as in the final report prevails over the statement of O.P.W.1 and is accepted. As such, the contention raised on behalf of the insurer to disbelieve the case of the claimant is rejected. The finding of learned Tribunal in this regard is thus confirmed.

5. There being no further challenge advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant in course of hearing with regard to quantification of compensation amount, the same is not required

to be interfered with by this Court. Here it needs to be mentioned that the cross-objection preferred by the claimant-Respondent No.1 is dismissed being barred by limitation, since the same has been filed around one year after the appearance.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as directed by the learned Tribunal within a period of two months before it including the interest, where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant-Respondent No.1 on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

7. On deposit of the award amount before learned Tribunal and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund application before this Court, the statutory deposit made before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant- Insurance Company.

8. The copies of the evidences and exhibits as produced by Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant in course of hearing are kept on record.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik