The Assistant Engineer vs Arnapurna Nayak
2025 Latest Caselaw 6810 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Assistant Engineer vs Arnapurna Nayak on 8 April, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              MACA No.398 of 2015

            In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the
            Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

           The Assistant Engineer,
           Agriculture D.P.A.P.,
           Phulbani                ....              Appellant


                                   -versus-

           1.      Arnapurna Nayak
           2.      Lupata Prasad
                   Nayak
           3.      Ashribad Nayak
           4.      The Collector,
                   Kandhamal            ....     Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. B. Jalli, Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents : Mr. D. Pattnaik, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Date of hearing : 28.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 08.04.2025

V. Narasingh, J. Respondents as Claimants being L.Rs of Bankanidhi Nayak filed MAC Case No.793 of 2006 in the court of learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of the unfortunate death of said Bankanidhi Nayak, who is the husband of Respondent No.1 and father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, while travelling in a Jeep bearing registration number OR-12-0843 which belonged to Opposite Party No.1 (Appellant herein).

2. It is apt to note here that in respect of the said accident a case was registered by Phiringia Police under Sections 279/304-A IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.178 of 2006 on the file of learned S.D.J.M, Phulbani. The basis for claiming quantum of compensation was that the deceased was working at the relevant time as S.I of Schools at Kotagarh Block and earning monthly salary of Rs.16,290/-. The present Appellant being the owner of the offending vehicle, admittedly not being insured, filed written statement and contested the claim. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

"1. Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OR-12- 0843 (Jeep), the accident took place and in that accident the deceased Bankanidhi Nayak succumbed to the injuries ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, and if so, to what extent ?

3. Whether the opposite parties or any of them are/is liable to pay the compensation ?

4. To what relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled ?"

And witnesses were examined on behalf of both sides. Several documents were admitted into evidence being marked as exhibits on behalf of the Claimants as well as Respondents of which most vital ones are the pay particulars of the deceased Ext.11 and certified copy of G.R. Case No.178 of 2006 on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani arising out of Phiringia P.S. Case No.32 of 2006 acquitting the driver from the offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Certified copy of the judgment in G.R. Case No.178 of 2006 (Ext.A) marked on behalf of the owner Opposite Party No.1 (Appellant herein).

On an analysis of the evidence on record, taking into account that the deceased was working as S.I of Schools which was not controverted, pay particulars of the deceased vide Ext.11 and considering that the deceased was drawing Rs.17,105/- per month as a salary at the relevant period, his age and relying on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others vrs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 (II) TAC 369 (SC) relating to future prospect and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) Supreme 487 regarding multiplier, learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.23,22,596/- together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal and urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the main plank of submissions of the learned Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Jalli is that admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted of the charges of rash and negligent driving by the judgment passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani in G.R. Case No.178 of 2006 (Ext.A) and this was specifically urged before the learned Tribunal to absolve the Appellant from liability. But while deciding the lis, learned Tribunal though referred to such stand of the Appellant but failed to give any finding on the said issue. Hence, on that count the impugned award being the outcome of non-application of mind is liable to be set aside. It is also urged that

the quantification is otherwise on the higher side bereft of any rationale and therefore, is liable to be interfered with. The quantification of interest is also challenged on the ground of being on the higher side at the relevant time.

4. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, the LRs of the deceased supported the award. He submitted that the same does not merit any interference taking into account the evidence on record relating to income and referring to the judgment governing the field. He relied on the judgments in the case of Pallab Kumar Ray vrs. Ratikanta Senapati & another, 2015 (3) TAC 858 (Ori.), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Chamundeswari in Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021 disposed of on 01.10.2021 and Ranjeet & another vrs. Abdul Kayam Neb & another (SLP(C) No.10351 of 2019 dated 25.02.2025) to resist the claim of the Appellant (Opposite Party No.1 before the learned Tribunal) that since the driver of the offending vehicle owned by them was acquitted from the criminal trial they are absolved of their liability.

5. In the case of Pallab Kumar Ray (supra), this Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reiterating the principle that the standard of

proof in a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act is summary in nature and provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to such proceeding. The Tribunal must take care to see that the innocent victims should not suffer and the Court should not succumb to the niceties of law. (Om Parkash Batis vrs. Ranjit, 2008 ACJ 1700 (SC).

This Court in the said judgment disapproved the approach of the learned Tribunal in deciding the claim like conducting a criminal trial. 5-A. The judgment in Chamundeswari (supra) is also to the same effect that the primacy must be given to the evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal rather than the contents of the FIR. 5-B. In Ranjeet (supra) the Apex Court held that once a charge sheet has been filed, no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being negligently driven by the driver.

6. Mr. Jalli, learned Senior Panel Counsel referring to the judgments cited submitted that in all the cases, there is nothing on record to indicate, as in the case in hand, that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in criminal trial and as such judgments cannot be of any assistance to the cause of the Respondents.

7. It is trite that a judgment has to be applied in the facts of each case. It needs no reiteration that underlining principle of deciding a claim case by the learned Tribunal is signally different from that of conducting a criminal trial or a civil proceeding. It is a benevolent legislation and the only guiding principle is that the claimant of a tragic accident should not be deprived of on technical grounds and the Courts in a higher position in the ladder of hierarchy, should be slow in interfering with the compensation awarded if it passed the test of just compensation unless there is manifestation of arbitrariness in the process of adjudication.

8. In the context of quantification of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in cases where the driver is not charge sheeted or acquitted, the following judgments of the Apex Court are referred to:

"I. N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Ors. dia vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal reported in (1980) 3 SCC 457 II. Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and Ors., (2023) 13 SCC 510 III. Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656"

In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court held as follows :

"The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under Section 304-A, IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort tort to create liability. The quantum of compen- sation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps, a case for enhancement, ement, the the High Court dismissed the the cross-claims cross- also. Being ques-tions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to to reopen the holdings on culpability and compensation"

In Mathew Alexander (supra) the Apex Court while referring to the judgments of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. and Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 observed that,

"xxx xxx xxx

12. In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal², wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-A IPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly. in Bimla

Devi v. Himachal RTC³ ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.....

    xxx                              xxx                  xxx"


       In    Mangla        Ram        (supra)     the   Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that while dealing with the claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties, its function is to determine the amount of fair compensation. The Court restated the legal position that the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof

beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with the motor accident cases. In other words, the approach of the Tribunal should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. In this regard it is observed that the filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same ought not to have any effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.

9. In the case at hand there is no dispute regarding accident or earning of the deceased who was a Government servant and hence merely because the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in a criminal trial that would not ipso facto disentitle the Claimant from claiming compensation consequentially does not absolve the Appellant from the liability to pay.

10. On a conspectus of the evidence on record this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award including the interest component

being just and the basis of such award also not being arbitrary and based on sound appreciation of fact and law does not warrant any interference.

11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

12. The Appellants are directed to deposit the compensation in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal and disburse the same amongst the Claimants proportionately as per the award within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

13. On production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper application.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th April, 2025/Pradeep

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:40:35