Orissa High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mangulu Munda And Others on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.58 of 2010
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Mangulu Munda and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
22.03.2023
Order No.
14. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-claimants.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 7.11.2009 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar in M.A.C.
Case No.289 of 2002, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,94,200/- has been granted along with interest @9% per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim
application on account of death of the deceased in the motor
vehicular accident dated 22.10.2002.
3. The dispute is with regard to validity of the insurance policy.
4. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel submits for the insurer that
the copy of the policy produced by the claimants under Ext.7 is
not a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, i.e. Dumper
bearing Registration No.OR-05-D-6722. In support of his
contention, he relies on the evidence of O.P.W.1, the Branch
Manager of the Company examined on behalf of the insurer.
5. It is seen that Ext.7 is a Photostat copy of the insurance policy
in respect of the offending vehicle. The owner did not come to
contest and was set exparte. The original policy in respect of
Ext.7 was not produced by the insurer. On the other hand, it is
contended by the insurance company based on the evidence of
O.P.W.1, that, the form of policy mentioned in Ext.7 cannot be
similar to the offending vehicle and therefore, liability of payment
of compensation cannot be saddled on the insurance company.
This contention of the insurance company has been elaborately
dealt with by the Tribunal at paragraph-7 of the impugned
judgment with reference to the evidence produced on the same.
6. It is true that despite specific policy number mentioned in
Ext.7, the insurer did not produced office copy of the same and
also did not produce the concerned register to successfully deny
issuance of any such policy in respect of the offending vehicle.
This being so, I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr.
Mohanty to disbelieve the case of the claimants with regard to
validity of the insurance policy, as produced under Ext.7. Further,
no flaw is seen in the approach of the learned Tribunal in saddling
the liability on the insurer to indemnify the compensation amount
and as such the same is confirmed.
7. With regard to quantification of compensation, the amount
determined by learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference
at the instance of the insurer for reduction. However, the rate of
interest is reduced to '6%' from '9%'.
8. In the result, the Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,94,200/- (rupees one
lakh ninety-four thousand two hundred) 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-
Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in equal proportion by keeping 75% of the
amount fall due to share of each claimant in fixed deposits for a
period of five years in any Nationalized Bank.
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 MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
11. The copy of the deposition of O.P.W.1 as produced by Mr.
S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant in course of
hearing is kept on record.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
