Orissa High Court
Smt. Mousumi Sahu And Others vs Sudarsan Samantara And Others on 29 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.778 of 2017
Smt. Mousumi Sahu and others .... Appellants
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Sudarsan Samantara and others .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
29.03.2023
Order No.
05. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company and Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1-owner.
2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the
judgment dated 29.05.2017 of learned 2nd M.A.C.T. (Southern
Division), Berhampur, Ganjam in M.A.C. Case No.114/2013
(290/2009-GDC), wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant
compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.
3. The case of the claimants is to the effect that the deceased,
namely, Sanjay Kumar Sahu was the rider of motorcycle bearing
Registration No.OR-07-M-2504 (mentioned as 'Motorcycle-A'
by learned Tribunal) and another motorcycle bearing Registration
No.OR-07-P-4087 (mentioned as 'Motorcycle-B' by learned
Tribunal) was coming from the opposite direction. The 3rd
motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-07-J-8674 (mentioned as
'Motorcycle-C' by learned Tribunal) was coming at the junction
from approaching road. The spot of accident is at Nehru Nagar
Junction of Gosaninuagam main road. The 'Motorcycle-C'
dashed against 'Motorcycle-B' and then to 'Motorcycle-A'
causing injury to the rider of 'Motorcycle-B' and death of rider of
'Motorcycle-A'.
4. The learned Tribunal on analysis of evidences of P.W.2 and 3
and the spot map prepared by the Police under Ext.L came to the
conclusion that the driver of 'Motorcycle-C' was not negligent in
causing the accident and rather it was the driver of 'Motorcycle-
B', who is responsible for the accident. But since 'Motorcycle-B'
did not have the valid insurance policy and its driver did not have
a valid driving license, 'Motorcycle-C' has been falsely
implicated. Accordingly, learned Tribunal refused to grant
compensation.
5. As per Police investigation report, the drivers of 'Motorcycle-
B' and 'Motorcycle-C' were found negligent in causing the
accident and as such, the charge-sheet was submitted against both
of them. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and 3, who are the
independent eye-witness and the injured driver of 'Motorcycle-B'
respectively, it is the driver of 'Motorcycle-C', who is negligent
in causing the accident. Perusal of copy of the spot map under
Ext.L, which is too much relied by learned Tribunal does not
support the conclusions derived by learned Tribunal to exonerate
the driver of 'Motorcycle-C'. The analysis of learned Tribunal to
arrive at such conclusion is found speculative and imaginary in
absence of any materials elicited in support of the same. When
the place of accident is undisputedly Nehru Nagar junction point
on the main road and approaching of 'Motorcycle-C' from the
sub-lane to main road is not doubted, no merit is seen in the
analysis of the learned Tribunal to exempt the driver of
'Motorcycle-C' from negligence. Moreover, the evidence of
P.W.2 and 3 are clear and categorical to the effect that the driver
of 'Motorcycle-C' was negligent for the accident. As such, the
conclusions arrived by learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 is
reversed and it is held that the driver of 'Motorcycle-C' was
negligent for causing the accident. Consequently, the impugned
award is set aside.
6. Initially though this Court was in favour of remanding the
matter back, but since the evidences with regard to entitlement of
the claimants for compensation and the quantum thereof have
already been brought on record, it is felt appropriate to decide the
same by this Court.
7. Undisputedly 'Motorcycle-C' is validly insured with Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. As per
the evidence of P.W.1 and the post-mortem report, the deceased
was aged about 40 years. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the
deceased was working as wireman and earning Rs.4500/- per
month. The accident took place on 7.9.2009. In absence of any
definite evidence on the income of the deceased, his income is
assessed at Rs.3000/- per month taking note of the rate of
minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident. Adding future
prospects to the extent of 40% and deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses, the loss of dependency is derived at
Rs.5,04,000/- by applying multiplier '15'. Adding Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the widow and two children
keeping the date of accident in view, and Rs.30,000/- towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is
determined at Rs.6,34,000/-, payable along with interest @6% per
annum.
8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Respondent No.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,34,000/- (rupees six
lakhs thirty-four 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 claimants on such terms and
proportions to be decided by learned Tribunal.
9. The copies of depositions and exhibits as produced by Mr. P.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants in course of hearing
are kept on record.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
