Orissa High Court
Divl. Manager vs Nibasini Chinira & Ors on 18 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1307 of 2023
Divl. Manager, Oriental ..... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Nibasini Chinira & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.07.2025
Order No.10
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
inter alia challenging Judgment dtd.06.10.2023 so passed by the
learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Nayagarh in MAC Case No.
18 of 2021. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal allowed the claim
of the Claimants-Respondents by awarding compensation to the tune
of Rs.7,93,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the driver of the offending
motorcycle having been driven by the son of the Owner who
happens to be a minor, which is not disputed, the compensation
should not have been allowed as against the Appellant.
4.1. It is contended that since the driver of the offending motor cycle
was a minor, he was not competent to drive the motor cycle in
question. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal without
proper appreciation of the same, since has passed the impugned
judgment, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents on the
other hand contended that even though the Appellant duly appeared
before the Tribunal, but never participated in the proceeding with
filing of the written statement and by leading any evidence that the
vehicle was driven by the son of the owner of the offending vehicle
who happens to be a minor. It is accordingly contended that since in
spite of appearance the Appellant never participated in the
proceeding by filing written statement and by leading evidence, the
ground on which the present appeal has been filed is not sustainable
in the eye of law and it requires no interference. It is also contended
that since right of recovery has been allowed, the Appellant will be
no way prejudiced.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the claim
application was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment
dtd.06.10.2013. Since it is not disputed that the offending vehicle
was driven by the son of the owner of the offending vehicle who
happens to be a minor, as per the considered view of this Court that
issue needs a consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, in that view
of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment
dtd.06.10.2023 so passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st
MACT, Nayagarh in MAC Case No. 18 of 2021.
6.1. However, since for the latches on the part of the Appellant, the
award was passed and it is now again being remanded for fresh
disposal, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Appellant.
Out of the said cost, Rs. 40,000/- be paid to the Claimants-
Respondents before the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents in the
present appeal.
7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
