Orissa High Court
Manager vs Sadananda Sahoo & on 11 April, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.371 of 2015
In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Manager, Legal ICICI
Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
-versus-
Sadananda Sahoo &
others .... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Date of hearing : 11.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.04.2025
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance
Company. None appears for the Claimant when the
matter is called.
2. Respondents as Claimants filed MAC Case
No.28 of 2011 (69 of 2014) in the court of 3rd
M.A.C.T., Dhenkanal claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the Appellant-Insurance Company
on account of the death of one Jamini Sahoo who is
the wife of Respondent No.1 and mother of
Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The owner of the offending
vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 before
the learned Tribunal and the present Appellant as the
Insurer was cited as Opposite Party No.2.
3. The case of the Claimants was that the
deceased wife was a pillion rider in a bicycle when it
was hit by the offending vehicle bearing registration
number OR-06-H-8213 on account of which the wife
of Respondent No.1 suffered injuries including on the
backside of her head. Considering the injuries
suffered she was first taken to Analabereni C.H.C and
thereafter, referred to D.H.H., Dhenkanal and on the
way to D.H.H., Dhenkanal unfortunately she
succumbed. The amount of compensation was
claimed, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased
was aged about 40 years and her monthly income
was Rs.6,300/- as Anganwadi Worker and from dairy
farm. Attributing rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle is the sole cause of
accident.
Pursuant to the notice, the present Appellant
as the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle
appeared. The owner was set ex parte since he did
not contest. The present Appellant as the Opposite
Party No.2 before the learned Tribunal raised a
specific plea that driver of the offending vehicle had
no driving licence and sought for dismissal of the
claim application. On the pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:
"1. Whether due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
motor cycle bearing Registration
No.OR/06-H-8213 the accident took
place and in that accident, deceased
Jamini Sahoo succumbed to the injuries
?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
get any compensation? If so, what would
be extent?
3. Whether all the O.Ps. or any one of
them, is/are liable to pay compensation
?
4. To what relief, if any, the petitioners
are entitled?"
While the Opposite Party No.1- husband was
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed as an eye
witness of the accident.
No witness was examined on behalf of the
Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company nor any
documents were placed on record on their behalf.
Exhibits 1 to 8 were admitted into evidence at
the behest of the Claimants-Respondents.
4. On an analysis of the evidence on record,
taking into account the oral as well as documentary
evidence at the behest of the Claimants and the plain
paper certificate indicating the monthly income of the
deceased was Rs.2063/- issued by the C.D.P.O.,
Parjanga, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly
income at Rs.2500/- and the annual income as
Rs.30,000/-. Taking into account the age of the
deceased, 14 multiplier was held to be applicable in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sarala Verma and others vrs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 43 OCR (SC)
349 and deducting 25% on account of dependency,
the total loss was assessed at Rs.3,15,000/-, loss of
estate and transportation and funeral expenses was
assessed as Rs.10,000/- and total compensation was
quantified at Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
Mr. Khan urged with vehemence on the basis of the
memorandum of appeal that it is a case of patent
manipulation of the record inasmuch as FIR was
lodged by the brother of the Claimants that he was
riding the offending motor cycle bearing registration
number OR-04-H-8213 and the deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider and on the way he dashed
another bicycle which resulted in the death of the
wife of Opposite Party No.1.
But, in order to claim compensation with the
connivance of the local police one Santosh Kumar
Sahoo was shown as the accused driver. Though FIR
(Ext.1) as well as 161 statement (Ext.7) were on
record, learned Tribunal failed to take note of the
same.
Hence, award being the outcome of non-
application of mind is liable to be set aside. It is his
further submission that since the Respondent No.1
had no driving licence, the Appellant is not liable to
pay any compensation.
The aforementioned grounds were taken as
Ground No.2 and 3 in the memorandum of appeal.
It is also urged that quantum of compensation
militates against the concept of just compensation
and award of interest @ 7% is also not justified.
6. This Court carefully examined the award with
reference to the evidence on record. Admittedly no
evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance
Company either oral or documentary in support of its
stand. Taking note of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 -
the husband and eye witness respectively, learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
took place because of rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing
registration number OR-04-H-8213 and in the said
accident deceased died and consequentially
quantification of compensation was done.
Since the Appellant Insurance Company
admittedly did not adduce any evidence it is not open
for the Insurance Company to raise ground of false
implication before this Court to resist the claim of
compensation.
7. On a conspectus of the evidence on record this
Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
award, keeping in view the time tested principle of
just compensation and the benevolent nature of
legislation to interfere with the impugned award.
However, this Court is persuaded to hold that the
reduction of interest from 7% per annum to 6%
would subserve the ends of justice.
Hence, while not interfering with the
quantum of compensation the interest component is
modified and reduced from 7% to 6%.
8. The Appellant is directed to deposit the
compensation in terms of the modified award as
above. Disbursal shall be done proportionately as
per the award within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. Within six weeks, 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.
10. The MACA is accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 11th April, 2025/Pradeep
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:40:35
