The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Ranjit Sahu And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 213 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  MACA No.956 of 2016


            The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.           ....         Appellant
                                                  Mr. M.C. Nayak, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            Sri Ranjit Sahu and another             ....       Respondents
                             Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate for Respondent No.1


                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                      ORDER

05.01.2023 Order No.

13. 1. Heard Mr. M.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-claimant.

2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 of the learned 4th MACT, Angul in M.A.C. No.112 of 2014, wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.11,52,000/- along with simple interest @7% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident dated 20.05.2014.

3. The case of the claimant is that he was the driver of a Hydra Crane vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-19-G-8885 under his employer, namely, M/s Shree Laxmi Enterprises, Angul engaged

in construction work of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited, Angul. On 20.5.2014 while the injured-claimant was filling brake oil in his vehicle, the offending vehicle, i.e. another Crane bearing Registration No.OR-19-M-4633 coming in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the injured-claimant and ran over his right leg. The claimant sustained grievous injury and as a result of which his right leg is amputed below the knee with 55% permanent disability.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurer contends that since the injured was an employee under the same employer, though in respect of another vehicle, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation amount. In other words, it is the contention of Mr. Nayak that the injured cannot be treated as a third party in respect of the offending vehicle.

5. This Court fails to conceive such an argument advanced from an experienced lawyer like Mr. M.C. Nayak. It is relevant here to re-produce the conditions of Policy as endorsed therein. The Policy postulates that "XX .. .. (b) Against legal liability (liability under contract excepted) for fatal or non-fatal injury to any person other than the insured or his own employees or employee of the owner or the works/site/premises/location or employees of other firms connected with other work site/premises/location or members of the family of the insured or any of the aforesaid. .."

From the aforesaid connotation it is understood that, the term ".. .. other than the insured or his own employees .." does not

include another employee in respect of another vehicle under the same employer.

6. In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the injured is not an employee in respect of the offending vehicle, but he was employed in respect of another vehicle. Therefore, in terms of the definition of third party, as clarified by the Supreme Court in several decisions, there is no iota of doubt to treat the injured as a third party in respect of the offending vehicle. As such, no merit is seen in the contention of Mr. Nayak and the same is accordingly rejected.

7. Having gone through the impugned judgment, I do not find any merit in favour of the insurer-Appellant in any other aspect including quantification of compensation amount. As such, the direction of the Tribunal made in the impugned judgment is confirmed.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest in terms of the direction of the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today, where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on same terms and proportions as contained in the impugned judgment.

9. 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.

10. The copy of insurance policy as produced by Mr. Nayak is kept on record.

11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik