Orissa High Court
The Legal Manager (Claims) vs Rasmikant Ranbir And Another on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.471 of 2022
The Legal Manager (Claims), .... Appellant
M/s.Shriram General Insurance Co.
Ltd.
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Rasmikant Ranbir and another .... Respondents
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate for Respondent No.1
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
06.01.2023
Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel
for the Respondent No.1-claimant.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 11.05.2022 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Cuttack in M.A.C.
No.631 of 2017, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.5,40,000/- has been granted along with simple interest @6%
per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.24.08.2017 on account of injury sustained by him
in the motor vehicular accident dated 23.07.2017.
3. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurer
submits that involvement of the present offending vehicle, i.e.
TATA ACE Pick-up bearing Registration No.OR-01-S-2866 is
doubtful due to the reasons, first, the FIR was lodged after 16
days of the accident and secondly, in the treatment papers the
submission of the injured is recorded as it took place involving
two two-wheeler vehicles.
4. It is seen that one witness, namely, Dr. Prafulla Kumar Sahoo
has been examined as O.P.W.1 on behalf of the insurer. The copy
of Ext.8, produced in course of hearing, reveals that the same is
prepared by Dr.Jyoti Prakash Parija. This is relied on by the
insurer to substantiate the contention that the accident was
between two two-wheelers. O.P.W.1 is not the author of Ext.8.
Therefore, what is stated by O.P.W.1 based on Ext.8 has no
credibility because the author of Ext.8 has not come to the
witness box. Further, said endorsement in Ext.8, allegedly made
by present claimant, is not supported by him in the witness box.
P.W.1, the claimant has categorically stated in his evidence about
involvement of the present offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE and
despite the same, no question has been put to him in the cross-
examination by the insurer with regard to any such contention
made in Ext.8. It is important to state here that in the accident,
another person namely Dillip Kumar Behera, P.W.2, was also
injured and though he has stated involvement of the TATA ACE
in the accident, but no such question has been put to him in the
cross-examination about such endorsement recorded in Ext.8.
Therefore, no merit is found in the contention of Mr. Dutta to rely
on this endorsement made in Ext.8 while admitting the injured to
the hospital.
5. With regard to the further contention about delay in lodging the
FIR, it is opined here that mere delay in lodging the FIR would
not take away the effect of its contention. When both the injured
were admitted in the hospital for treatment for such injuries
sustained in the accident, the delay in lodging of the FIR is itself
explainable. Moreover, the Police upon completion of
investigation have submitted charge-sheet against the driver of
the offending vehicle, i.e. TATA ACE. Therefore, the grounds
raised by the insurer in the appeal to doubt involvement of the
offending vehicle are seen without merit.
6. With regard to quantification of compensation amount,
considering all such grounds of challenges advanced in the appeal
and upon hearing both the parties, a reduced compensation of
Rs.4,80,000/- along with 6% interest is proposed to the parties in
course of hearing. Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
claimant-Respondent No.1 agrees to the same and Mr. G.P. Dutta,
learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to
the discretion of the Court. The compensation amount is
accordingly fixed to that extent.
7. In the result, the Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the reduced compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- (rupees four
lakhs eighty thousand) before the Tribunal along with interest
@6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
within a period of two months from today; where-after the same
shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant-Respondent No.1 on
such terms and proportion to be fixed by the Tribunal.
8. The default interest @12% per annum is waived.
9. On deposit of the award amount before the 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 MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
11. The copies of depositions and Ext.8 as filed in course of
hearing by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant are kept
on record.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
