1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company and learned counsel for the
Respondents.
2. The present MACA has been preferred by the
Appellant-Insurance Company assailing the award dated
05.08.2014 passed by the learned 4th MACT, Puri in M.A.C
Case No.229 of 1996 whereby learned Tribunal directed
for payment of compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- along with
interest at the 7.5% per annum to the claimant from the
date of filing of the claim case i.e. 11.07.1996 till
realisation.
3. The brief facts of the Claimants are that on
24.03.1996, while the deceased was occupying the
carrier of a bi-cycle and going towards Nuahat side from
Tulasipur, the offending vehicle bearing registration
number OR-04-2055 came in a high speed dashed
against the bi-cycle, as a result of which the deceased
sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, she was shifted to
the hospital but unfortunately she succumbed to the said
injuries at the hospital. Since the deceased was a
professional musician and was earning Rs.2000/- per
month, a claim application was filed claiming
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.
4. Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the
offending vehicle appeared and contested the claim case
denying the liability. Appellant-Insurance Company
appeared and filed its written statement denying the
assertions made in the claim petition.
3. Was the rider of the offending vehicle was rash
and negligent in causing the accident?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation,
if so, to what extent and from which O.P.?
5. To what relief?"
In order to substantiate their claim, Claimant-
Respondent No. 2 examined herself as P.W.2, and one
independent witness was examined as P.W.1, and
documents were exhibited on behalf of the Claimants and
marked as Exts. 1 to 3.
No witness was examined on behalf of the owners
of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance
Company. But the Oriental Insurance Company filed two
documents which were marked as Exts.A to B.
Considering the evidence on record, learned
Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of
Rs.1,52,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from
the date of filing of the claim, i.e.11.07.1996, till the date
of payment.
5. The impugned award is primarily challenged by
the Appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that,
since during investigation, it came to light that the
offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance
Company and not with the present Appellant, the reliance
of the Tribunal on the xerox copy of the insurance policy
filed from the side of the Claimant, to hold that the same
was insured with the present Appellant-Insurance
Company, ought not to have weighed with the Tribunal in
saddling the present Appellant with the liability of
compensation. The award is also assailed on the ground
that the assessment of compensation, taking into account
the prevailing Wages Act on the date of accident, is very
much on the higher side and consequentially, such
quantification is liable to be interfered with.
6. The issue as to whether the present appellant can
be fastened with the liability was specifically dealt with
under Issue No. 4, as extracted hereunder. The same is
culled out for convenience of ready reference;
"xxx xxx xxx
Here the petitioners claim themselves to the
father and mother of the deceased and the same
has not been challenged in anywhere and hence,
in my view, they are entitled for compensation to
be awarded in this case. So far as lability to pay
compensation is concerned, it is found from the
seizure list and zimanama that the said bus was
already insured with O.P.No.2 covering the date
of accident i.e. on 29.2.2008 and DL Of the driver
of the said bus was also valid on the same day
and hence, in my view, O.P.No.2 is liable to pay
compensation amount to be awarded in this case.
As regards the lability of compensation and
quantum, as per the learned Counsel for the O.P
No.2 the multiplier is to be taken considering the
age of the parents and not the deceased. He has
relied on the case law reported in 2007(4) T.A.C
17(S.C) (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs
Smt. Shanti Pathak and others). On the other
hand, on the said point as per the learned
counsel for the petitioners universally for the
accident claim case the Present trend is to
consider the age of the deceased to fix Multiplier.
He has relied on the Sarla verma case and also
the case "reported in 2013(131) AIC 219 (S.C)
(Kishan Gopal and another vrs Lala and others);
where it has been decided as per rule laid down
in Sarla verma case and subsequently it has been
followed by three bench decision in Reshma
Kumari case of the said Apex Court. Further, in
the case reported in 2012(4) TAC 775 (S.C)
(Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vrs. National
Insurance Company Ltd.) the principle has been
decided as regards passing of multiplier basing on
the age of the deceased and not the age of the
claimants. Hence, in my view, in this case
multiplier is to be fixed basing on the age of the
deceased and not the claimants. So far as lability
of the Insurance company is concerned according
to the learned counsel for the O.P the disclosed
cover note is a forged one and the police has
seized the insurance policy for National Insurance
company any which was valid from 22.6.93 to
21.3.97 and also the accident took-place on
24.3.1996 and so, the xerox copy of the cover
note has been fabricated. O.P No.2 is not in the
picture and hence, O.P.No.2 is not liable. On this
point, as per the learned counsel for the
petitioners since the O.P.No.2 has filed a petition
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he
takes all the responsibilities of O.P.No.1. Hence,
it is he to establish that the said xerox copy is a
fake one. Further, since the xerox copy correlates
with the details of the seized insurance as per the
policy and hence, it is needless to say that the
police has wrongly mentioned the name of the
insurance i.e. National Insurance Company in
place of New India Assurance Company in the
case reported in 2010(4) TAC 306(Ori.) (United
India Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Ullash
Chandra Moharane and others) it has been
decided that in the written statement the
question of fact by way of defence is to be
specifically raised and the same denial is not
sufficient and the denial must be evasive. Here,
O.P. Has only made evasive denial regarding his
non-connection to the case but has not
substantially established the same. Further in the
case reported in 2000 ACJ 1259 (Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vrs.
Labanga Sahu and others) it has been decided as
follows:
"Liability of Insurance Company-Cover note
Presumption as to liability of insurance
company-Number of cover note was
disclosed, a copy thereof containing name of
insurance company, agent, date of cover
note and period of insurance was filed. To
except the insurance company from liability
he has to rebut the prima facie presumption
that the vehicle was validly insured with it."
Here, O.P.No.2 has not discharged his such
duties. Further, in the case reported in 2012
(112) AIC 842(PAT.HC) (New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. VARANASI, U.P and another vrs.
Md.Khalil Nai and others) it has been decided that
the plea raised in the cover note is forged,
fabricated and fake document. The Tribunal in a
summary proceeding no error committed by
giving liberty to the insurance company to take
legal action, if any, against the owner and driver
of the vehicle. Here, the O.P has not collected for
the same., Thus, I am of the view to rely on the
said xerox copy of the cover note for the
concerned O.P.-Insurance Company. The seizure
list shows that the offending vehicle was duly
Insured under National Insurance Company Ltd.
It is found from the claim application that in place
of National Insurance Company, New India
Assurance Company has been added as party in
this case and it is also found from the xerox copy
of the insurance policy filed from the side of the
applicants that the offending vehicle was insured
under New Indian Assurance Company and the
date of validity was from 23.3.96 to 22.3.97 but
that date is not legible. There is no counter
document filed from the side of the O.P.No.2 that
the said vehicle was insured under them. Hence,
in my view, the said vehicle was insured under
O.P. No.2 and the same was valid on the date of
accident and hence, O.P.No.2 is liable to pay the
awarded amounts to be awarded in this case.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasized)
7. In dealing with such issue, the learned Tribunal
took into account that the Appellant-Opposite Party No. 2
had not led any evidence to substantiate its stand that
the vehicle in question was not insured with the
Appellant, in the light of the seizure list indicating that
the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance
Company. On verification of the insurance policy, the
learned Tribunal came to a finding that the offending
vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance
Company. In the face of such finding, since no counter-
evidence was led to rebut the same and the oral
testimonies of P.W.2 relating to the present Appellant
being the insurer having stood the test of cross-
examination, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the
present Appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle
does not merit interference by this Court in exercising its
appellate jurisdiction.
8. Considering that the deceased girl was aged
about 18 years on the fateful date (24.03.1996),
evaluation of the quantification of compensation by the
Tribunal at Rs.1,52,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e.,
11.07.1996 till realisation, on the touchstone of just
compensation, this Court does not find any merit in the
allegation of illegality in such quantification, warranting
interference.
Taking into account the delineation as above, the
MACA stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
9. Within six weeks of production of proof regarding
the deposit of the said compensation amount before the
Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest
be refunded to the Appellant on proper application.
10. In view of the disposal of the MACA, all the
pending I.As. stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Location: High Court ofOrissa High Court, Cuttack
Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 22nd December, 2025/Santoshi
Date: 23-Dec-2025 20:24:41
