Orissa High Court
The Divisional vs Adimulla & Others on 4 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.34 of 2022
The Divisional ..... Appellant
Manager, Reliance G.I. Mr. S.Satapathy, Adv.
Co. Ltd.
-versus-
Adimulla & Others ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Behera, Adv.
(for Respondent No.1 to 4)
Ms. A. Pati, Adv. on behalf
of Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
(for respondent no.5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.04.2025
Order No.8
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2 . Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-company, Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. A.
Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mishra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of No.5
3. The appellant-insurer has filed the present appeal
challenging judgment dt.30.06.2021 so passed by the
learned III MACT, Dharmagarh in MAC Case No.26 of 2018.
Vide the said award, the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.17,96,500/- with interest payable 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till
its realisation.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant contended that even though the Appellant took
a specific stand that the offending vehicle was not insured at
the time of causing the accident on 30.07.2018 and such a
document was also exhibited vide Ext.C, but without proper
appreciation of the said policy, the appellant-company was
held liable to pay the compensation amount vide the
impugned judgment.
4.1.It is contended that the offending vehicle was insured
with issuance of the policy vide Ext.C and the policy covers
the period from 24.11.2018 to 23.11.2019. Since the
accident had taken place on 30.07.2018 and the policy vide
Ext.C was issued covering the period from 24.11.2018, the
appellant-company should not have been held liable in
absence of any valid materials being produced either by the
claimants or by the owner showing that the offending vehicle
was insured as on the date of accident. It is accordingly
contended that without relying on the documents exhibited
vide Ext.C, since the Tribunal passed the award, the same is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2.It is also contended that in spite of due appearance
before the Tribunal as well as before the Court. Respondent
No.5 has failed to produce any policy issued by the
appellant-company, showing coverage of the policy to the
date of accident. It is accordingly contended that on the face
of Ext-'C', the Tribunal could not have disbelieved the policy
with passing of the impugned award.
5. Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the claimants-respondents on the other hand contended
that since after going through the materials placed before
the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held the appellant liable, let
the appellant pay the compensation and right of recovery be
allowed against the owner-Respondent NO.5.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions, this Court finds that the claim
application was filed by the claimants, seeking grant of
compensation in respect of a road accident which took place
on 30.07.2018. Even though the I.O while filing the charge-
sheet produced an insurance policy covering the date of
accident, but in view of the stand of the appellant that the
said policy is a fake one and the policy was in fact issued in
favour of the offending vehicle vide Ext.C covering the
period from 24.11.2018 to 23.11.2019, it is the view of this
Court that on the face of such document being produced by
the appellant vide Ext.-C, the same should not have been
disbelieved by the Tribunal by relying on a policy which is
alleged to be a fake one.
7. Since from Ext.C, it is apparent that the offending
vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident, as per
the considered view of this Court, the appellant-Company
should not have been held liable to pay the compensation.
7.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and while quashing the same, this
Court exempt the appellant from paying the compensation
so awarded vide the impugned judgment dt.30.06.2021,
passed in MAC Case No.26 of 2018 by the learned IIIrd
M.A.C.T., Dharamgarh. This Court in the alternate held
Respondent NO.5 as liable to pay the award amount so
assessed vide the impugned judgment. This Court
accordingly directs Respondent No.5 to pay the
compensation as awarded by making the deposit before the
Tribunal within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of
receipt of the order. On such deposit of the amount the
same be disbursed in favour of the claimants-respondents in
terms of judgment dt.30.06.2021.
7.2.It is observed that Account Payee Cheque so
deposited by the appellant company and not yet invested be
returned back after satisfaction of the award.
7.3.The MACA accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authenticaton of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:42:58
