Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Tapan Kumar Das & on 24 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.29 of 2024
Divisional Manager, .... Appellant
National Insurance Co. Mr. M. Sinha, Adv.
Ltd.
-versus-
Tapan Kumar Das & .... Respondents
Another
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
24.06.2025
Order No.
7. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Perused the tracking report.
3. Since notice on Respondent No.2 has been duly
delivered and no appearance has been made, notice
against the said respondent is treated as sufficient.
4. In spite of sufficiency of service of notice on
Respondent No.1 vide order dt.06.05.2025, no
appearance has also been made on behalf of Respondent
No.1.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. The present has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging the judgment dt.03.03.2023 so
// 2 //
passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-III
MACT, Dhenkanal in MAC Case No.283 of 2018. Vide
the said Judgment, claim of claimant-respondent No.1
was allowed with a direction on appellant-company to
pay compensation amount of Rs.2,47,788/- along with
interest @7% per annum payable from the date of
application till its realization with right of recovery as
against Respondent No.2-owner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
company bring to the notice of this Court the finding of
the Tribunal so reflected in para-7 of the impugned
judgment. Placing reliance on para-7 of the judgment, it
is contended that that the offending vehicle was driven
by the driver who happens to be the owner, but the
driver was having no valid driving licence. Placing
reliance on the decision rendered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh
& Others, (2004) 1 ACC-194, further relied on by this
Court in its judgment dt.18.06.2025 passed in MACA
No.669 of 2020, it is contended that since the driver of
the offending vehicle who happens to be the owner was
not having valid driving licence, the appellant is not
liable to pay the compensation as directed.
7.1. A further submission was also made that since the
owner is the driver, no right of recovery can also be
made. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.
// 3 //
8. This Court in para 8.4 and 8.5 of the judgment
passed in MACA No.669 of 2020 dt.18.06.2025, has held
as follows:
"8.4. Placing reliance on the decisions in the
case of Swaran Singh as well as Singh Ram
so cited by the learned counsels appearing
for the respective parties, it is the view of
this Court that since the driver of the
offending vehicle also happens to be the
owner of the said vehicle, the stand taken
by the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants-respondents that unless and until
it is proved that the owner of the offending
vehicle was having conscious knowledge
that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having valid D.L. and accordingly no
fault can be found with the impugned
award, is not acceptable. Since the driver of
the offending vehicle is also the owner of
the vehicle, conscious knowledge of the
owner that he was not having valid D.L., is
well proved. No right of recovery is also
permissible as the owner is the driver of the
offending vehicle.
8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this
Court placing reliance on the decision in the
case of Swaran Singh as cited (supra) and
more particularly the finding in sub-para
(vii) of Para-106 of the judgment, is of the
view that the appellant is not liable to pay
the compensation so awarded."
9. Since no appearance has been made on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 & 2, this Court is unable to know the
contention of the said respondents. Since it is proved
that the owner who happens to be the driver of the
offending vehicle was having no valid driving licence,
// 4 //
placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court
as cited supra, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned judgment dt.03.03.2023 in MACA Case
No.283 of 2018/R.N. No.190 of 2018. While quashing
the impugned judgement, this Court allows the appeal.
10. Statutory deposit be refunded along with the
accrued interest on proper identification within a period
of two (2) weeks hence.
11. The MACA accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
sangita Judge
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 25-Jun-2025 18:50:48
