Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs N.Ananda Rao Reddy & Ors on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA Nos.975 & 976 of 2014
MACA No. 975 of 2014
Divisional Manager, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Co.Ltd.
Mr. M.C.Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
N.Ananda Rao Reddy & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate for Owner-Respondent
MACA No.976 of 2014
Divisional Manager, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Co.Ltd.
Mr.M.C.Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
T.Pratap Reddy & Anr. .... Respondents
Mr. B.Jalli, Advocate
Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate for Owner-Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
02.05.2023
Order No.
10. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Nayak, learned counsel for the Insurer-Appellant,
Mr.Jalli, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents and Mr.Das,
learned counsel for the Owner-Respondent.
3. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated
15th September, 2014 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(S.D.), Berhampur, Ganjam in MAC Case Nos. 28 of 2009 (233/2006-
GDC) and 170 of 2011 (245/2006-GDC), wherein compensation to
the tune of Rs.2,30,000/- was granted in MAC No.28 of 2009 and
Rs.42,000/- in MAC No.170 of 2011 along with interest @ 6 % per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application
on account of death of the deceased and injury sustained by the
injured in the motor vehicular accident on 10th June 2006, are heard
together and disposed of by this common order.
4. MACA No.975 of 2014 is relating to MAC No. 28 of 2009
(233/2006-GDC) where the deceased namely N.Jayanta Reddy died
and MACA No. 976 of 2014 is relating to MAC No. 170 of 2011
(245/2006-GDC) where Claimant T.Pratap Reddy was injured.
5. The common challenge advanced by Mr.Nayak is to the
effect that the driver of the offending Truck bearing Registration
No. ORO-2278 was not negligent for the accident and it is the
deceased who was driving the scooter along with the injured on the
wrong side of the road. In support of his submission, the evidence
of MVI as O.P.W.1 is relied on.
6. According to the Claimants, while the deceased and the
injured were standing on road side keeping their scooter on the NH,
the offending Truck dashed them along with scooter causing the
accident. P.W.2 is the injured himself and the eye witness of the
accident. He has narrated how the driver of Truck was negligent for
causing the accident and on his report Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 94 of
2006 was registered. The police upon completion of investigation
submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Truck
for commission of offences under Section 279/337/338/304-A
stating negligence on his part. Therefore, the contention of the
Claimants with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the
Truck is supported by the oral evidence of the eye witness as well
as by police investigation report.
7. On the other hand, the MVI (O.P.W.1) verified the spot of
accident after two days and it is admitted by him in cross-
examination that the width of road at the spot of accident is 26.5ft.
It being national highway innumerable vehicles had passed through
the spot in the meantime. As seen from the evidence, his opinion is
based on skid mark of the tyre found on the pitch road at the spot.
Admittedly, the evidence of MVI is in the nature of expert evidence
and his opinion cannot override the direct evidence of the injured
eye-witness available on record in the instant case. Moreover,
O.P.W.1 (MVI) inspected the spot after two days of the occurrence
and the concerned vehicles were already removed from the spot by
then. Therefore, this Court agrees with the findings of learned
Tribunal in fixing negligence on the part of the driver of Truck and
the same is confirmed.
8. On the question of quantum of compensation, no serious
dispute is raised relating to the Claimants in death case (MAC No.
28 of 2009). So far as the injury case is concerned, Mr.Nayak urges
for reduction of the amount. However, such submission of Mr.
Nayak is found without merit keeping in view the nature of injuries
and period of treatment undergone by the injured. Accordingly, the
quantification of compensation amounts in both the cases are
confirmed.
9. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with a direction
to the Insurer-Appellant to deposit the respective compensation
amounts along with interest as per the direction of learned Tribunal,
within a period of two months from today; where-after the same
shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on same terms and
proportion contained in the impugned award.
10. 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 in both cases before this
Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-
Insurance Company.
11. The copy of deposition of O.P.W.1 as produced by Mr.Nayak in
course of hearing is kept on record.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.Das
Digitally signed by SANGRAM
SANGRAM DAS DAS
Date: 2023.05.03 19:14:21 +05'30'
