Orissa High Court
B.M vs Nirupama Muduli & Others on 13 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.544 of 2024
B.M., ICICI Lombard General ... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd., Rourkela
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Nirupama Muduli & Others ... Respondents
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate
for Res. Nos.1 to 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.03.2025
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel
appearing for claimants/Respondent nos.1 to 3.
3. Despite due service of notice on respondent no.4,
none has appeared on his behalf.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2024, so passed
by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-5th
MACT, Rourkela in MAC No.17 of 2016. Vide the said
judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.9,77,200/- along with interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing of the application till its
realization.
5. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased
was the occupant in a Tata Magic bearing Registration
No.OR-14-R-0520. As reflected in the FIR, so lodged
by one of the relative of the deceased, the Tata Magic
dashed from behind the offending truck bearing
Registration No.OR-19-G-8328. It is also contended
that in the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. the
driver of the Tata Magic was charge sheeted.
5.1 It is also contended that in the Final Form
submitted by the I.O. and the spot map enclosed
thereto, it can be seen that the Tata Magic dashed
from behind the truck, while it was parked completely
in the left side of the road. Learned counsel for the
appellant produced the spot map and copy of the final
form in support of his contention in Court for persual.
5.2 It is also contended that since the deceased was
an occupant in the Tata Magic and because of fault of
the driver of the Tata Magic, the accident occurred,
owner of the Tata Magic should have been impleaded
as a party to the claim application and he was a
necessary party to the proceeding. But the claim
application was filed only against the appellant
company and owner of the offending truck.
5.3 it is contended that the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the contents FIR, the Final Form, held
the appellant liable to pay the compensation. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is
not sustainable in the eye of law and needs
interference of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant on
the other hand contended that due to negligence of
both the vehicles, the accident occurred and the
deceased died, on the ground of composite negligence,
the claim application was filed against the owner and
the appellant company, the insurer of the truck
bearing Registration No.OR-19-G-8328. It is also
contended that as the driver of the Tata Magic has
been charge sheeted, the appellant company can
recover the compensation amount from the owner of
the Tata Magic in accordance with law.
7. To the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for
the appellant inter alia contended that since the owner
of the Tata Magic is not a party to the proceeding, it is
not feasible to sue the owner of the Tata Magic. It is
accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to
the Tribunal and by giving opportunity to the
claimants/respondent nos.1 to 3 to implead the owner
of the Tata Magic as a party to the proceeding.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering the submissions made and after going
through the documents produced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the
deceased died due to accident caused on 28.10.2015.
As found from the record that the deceased was an
occupant in the Tata Magic and it is also found from
the record that the Tata Magic dashed from behind the
offending truck.
8.1 In view of the materials available on record, this
Court is of the view that owner of the Tata Magic was
a necessary party to the proceeding. In such view of
the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned judgment dated 23.03.2024 passed by the
learned 2nd ADJ-cum-5th MACT, Rourkela in MAC
No.17 of 2016. While quashing the same, this Court
remits the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh
adjudication. It is open for the appellant to implead
the owner of the Tata Magic as a party to the
proceeding.
8.2 It is observed that if any such application will be
filed to implead the owner of the Tata Magic, the same
be allowed and the matter shall be decided, by giving
due opportunity to all concerned. Since the claim is of
the year 2016, the Tribunal shall do well to decide the
same as expeditiously as possible preferably by end of
this year.
9. The Appeal stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Mar-2025 11:22:28
