Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chumki Kusta And Others on 27 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.577 of 2022
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. M. Sinha, Advocate
-versus-
Chumki Kusta and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Ms. R.Pradhan, Advocate for Respondent No.4
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
27.03.2023
Order No.
03. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants and Ms. R. Pradhan, learned
counsel for the Respondent No.4-owner.
3. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 15.09.2022 of learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Northern Division,
Sambalpur in M.A.C. Case No.39 of 2013 (Sambalpur), wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.7,15,500/- has been granted along
with simple interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the
date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 07.03.2013 on account
of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated
24.1.2009.
4. Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurer
submits that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Indica Car
bearing Registration No.OR-15-M-6202 did not have a valid
driving license on the date of accident and therefore, the insurer is
not liable to indemnify the owner. He further contends that in any
event present Appellant is not liable to pay the interest component
till the date of their appearance before the Tribunal since the fault
is entirely on the claimants for delayed notice.
5. It is seen that as per Ext.M, the copy of the Driving License
No.477/93, the accused driver, namely, Manu Barik was
authorized to drive a light motor vehicle. What is contended by
Mr. Sinha that he was not authorized to drive a commercial
vehicle is not found conceivable in view of the definition given
under Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act. As such, such contention
raised by the insurer is rejected.
6. The next controversy is regarding payment of interest from the
date of filing of claim application till appearance of the insurer in
the claim application, i.e. from 7.3.2013 to 1.8.2017. It is seen
that, admittedly the Police submitted charge-sheet along with the
seizure list mentioning National Insurance Co. Ltd. as valid
insurer of offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claimants
impleaded National Insurance Co. Ltd. initially, who on their
appearance disclosed about present appellant, i.e. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. as the valid insurer. Accordingly, the
claimants have amended the application and notice was issued to
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, no fault can be counted
against the claimants for delaying the claim application. At the
same time, it would be improper to expect on the part of the
claimants to know about the insurer without help of Police
papers. It is natural on that part to rely the Police seizure list.
Accordingly all such contentions raised by Mr. Sinha to waive the
interest till their appearance are rejected.
7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Appellant - Insurance Company to deposit entire compensation
amount along with interest within a period of two months from
today before the Tribunal as per its direction, where-after the
same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 on same terms and proportion as contained in the
impugned judgment.
8. 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.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
