Orissa High Court
The Manager vs Lata Naik And Others on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.294 of 2022
The Manager, Claims, HDFC ERGO
General Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Lata Naik and Others .... Respondents
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
1.5.2023
Order No.
05. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer -
Appellant. None is present for the Respondents.
3. Present appeal by the insurer - Appellant is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2022 of learned 3rd MACT,
Bhanjanagar passed in MAC Case No.73 of 2016, wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.11,41,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 17th
May, 2016 has been granted on account of death of deceased Tutu
Naik in the motor vehicular accident dated 13th July, 2015.
4. Mr. Dutta submits that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger
in the offending tractor-trolley bearing registration number OR-07-H-
6950 and OR-07-H-6951 at the time of accident and therefore, the
insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation amount.
5. As seen from the records, the deceased was a labourer of the
offending vehicle according to the claimants. This is the consistent
evidence of both the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants.
No rebuttal evidence has been adduced against the same except mere
statement of O.P.W.1, an officer of the company who did not have
any direct knowledge about the accident. As per police papers, the
deceased was engaged as a labourer and moving in the offending
vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention raised on
behalf of the insurer to treat the deceased as a gratuitous passenger is
rejected being without merit.
6. Mr. Dutta further contends that the offending vehicle did not
have a valid permit on the date of accident. The same is substantiated
through Ext.B and Ext.C. The owner has not stated anything in his
written statement denying the contention of insurer regarding absence
of permit in respect of the offending vehicle. As such, the right of
recovery is extended in favour of the insurer after granting
opportunity of hearing to the owner.
7. On the question of quantum of compensation, I do not find any
merit in favour of the insurer to reduce the same since the same has
been derived by adopting all settled procedures. The amount is thus
confirmed.
8. In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
insurer - Appellant to deposit entire compensation amount before the
tribunal along with interest as per its direction, within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant- Respondents on same terms and proportion as
contained in the impugned judgment.
9. However the direction of the tribunal for payment of default
interest @ 9% is waived.
10. The statutory deposit made by the appellant - insurer before
this court along with accrued interest thereof be refunded on proper
application and on production of proof of deposit of the awarded
amount before the tribunal.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
Digitally signed by
MANAS MANAS KUMAR PANDA
KUMAR PANDA Date: 2023.05.01
19:10:42 +05'30'
