Orissa High Court
H.D.F.C. vs Saudamini Dash & Ors on 29 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.632 of 2018
H.D.F.C., Ergo G.I.Co.Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. A.A.Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Saudamini Dash & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. P.K.Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
29.03.2023
Order No.
13. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents.
3. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against judgment
dated 16th February, 2018 of 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
MACT, Bhubaneswar in M.A.C. Case 28/220 of 2012, wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.36,65,504/- has been granted along
with interest @7% 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 13th August, 2012.
4. Mr.Khan strenuously contended on behalf of the Insurer that
the offending vehicle i.e. Mini Truck bearing registration No. OR-
02-BT-8571 has been implanted in the case though the same was
not involved. It is submitted by Mr.Khan that the accident took
place on 13th August, 2012 and the charge-sheet was submitted by
police on 11th April, 2013. The claim application was filed on 30th
November, 2012 before submission of the charge-sheet and even
prior to seizure of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that
the Claimants have connived with owner to implead the offending
vehicle in the claim application to manage compensation.
5. The Police Investigating Officer has been examined as
O.P.W.1. Said O.P.W.1 has clearly stated in his evidence that the
FIR was lodged on 13th August, 2012 and on the same day the
investigation commenced and from examination of one Prasanna
Kumar Sahoo, he could know about involvement of offending
vehicle in the accident. Therefore it is obvious on the part of the
claimants to have knowledge of involvement of offending vehicle
in the accident, even prior to submission of the charge-sheet.
6. P.W.2 is the independent eye witness of the accident and
examined on behalf of the Claimants. He has categorically stated
about involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and rash and
negligent driving on the part of its driver in causing the accident
resulting death of the deceased. So, all such materials brought on
record coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and O.P.W.1, no merit is
seen in the contention of the Insurer to doubt the involvement of
offending vehicle in the accident. No such materials could also be
noticed regarding false implantation of the vehicle in the accident.
Accordingly, the contention of the Insurer to doubt involvement of
the offending is seen unfounded and hence rejected.
7. On the question of quantum of compensation, no merit is
seen to interfere with the amount as determined by the Tribunal.
The same is accordingly confirmed.
8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Insurer-Appellant to deposit entire compensation amount including
interest before the Tribunal as per its direction 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. However, penal interest @ 8% as directed by the
Tribunal is waived.
9. The statutory amount plus the amount deposited by the
Appellant before this Court as per the order dated 18th February,
2020 shall be refunded with accrued interest thereon to him on
proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the
award amount before the learned Tribunal.
10. The copies of the depositions and exhibits as produced by
Mr.Mishra in course of hearing are kept on record.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.Das
