Orissa High Court
Tejeswar Panda vs Hemalata Dhalo And Ors on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.759 of 2016
Tejeswar Panda .... Appellant
Mr. D. Mund, Advocate
-versus-
Hemalata Dhalo and Ors. .... Respondents
Mr.S.K. Mohanty, Advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
19.01.2023
Order No.
09. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for claimant-Respondent No.4.
3. Present appeal by the Claimant is directed against the
judgment dated 16th April, 2016 of the 2nd Addl. District Judge-
cum-5th MACT, Berhampur, Ganjam, in M.A.C. Case No. 116 of
2008, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- has
been granted along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect
from the date of filing of the claim application on account of
death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 7th May,
2007.
4. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellant submits
that in two other claim applications i.e. MAC No. 28 of 2007 and
29 of 2007 in the court of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-
MACT, Nabarangpur by order dated 22.12.2012 and 20.12.2010
respectively, the Insurer, i.e. United India Insurance Company
Ltd. (present Respondent No.4) has satisfied the award amount
directed in favour of the Claimants. Mr. Mund further submits
that both those claim applications are arising out of the same
accident concerning injury to one Narayan Naik (MAC No.28 of
2007) and death of one Nilakantha Naik (MAC No. 29 of 2007).
5. Being asked, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Insurer-Respondent No.4 submits that despite sincere efforts, no
instruction could be received with regard to the submission of
Mr. Mund.
6. It is needs to be mentioned here that on the prayer of
the Respondent-Insurer, the matter was once adjourned earlier for
this purpose.
7. In this present appeal, the main challenge by the
Insurer is that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger of the
offending vehicle and therefore, the Insurer is not liable to
indemnify the compensation amount on behalf of the owner. But
as per the submission of Mr. Mund, which Mr. Mohanty is unable
to deny despite opportunities granted, it is inferred that the
insurance company has satisfied the award amount in those other
two claim applications. As such, no merit survives in the present
challenge to treat the deceased as a gratuitous passenger to
disown the liability by the insurance company. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed.
8. In the result, the insurance company, i.e. Respondent
No.4 is directed to indemnify and deposit the total compensation
amount Rs.2,50,000/- 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 claimants on such terms and
proportion to be fixed by the Tribunal.
9. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with
accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application
and on production of proof of deposit of the award amount before
the learned Tribunal.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
Sangram Das
