Orissa High Court
Bapi Pradhan & Anr vs Ranjan Kumar Sahu & Anr on 17 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.521 of 2022
Bapi Pradhan & Anr. ..... Appellants
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Ranjan Kumar Sahu & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
(Respondent No. 2)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.03.2025
Order No.06
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants-Claimants and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent No. 2-Company.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants-Claimants
challenging judgment dtd.22.08.2022 so passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Talcher in MAC Case No. 120/2017.
The claim application filed by the Appellants was dismissed on
contest with passing of a nil award.
4. It is contended that the aforesaid claim application was filed
seeking grant of compensation for the death of the deceased in a
road accident, which took place on 06.11.2017. It is contended that
the deceased was initially taken to CHC, Kaniha for her treatment
and subsequently she was shifted to Aswini Hospital, Cuttack for
her better treatment. But on 13.11.2017 while undergoing treatment
in Aswini Hospital, the deceased died.
4.1. It is also contended that on such death of the deceased,
Markatnagar U.D. P.S. Case No. 66 of 2017 was registered and post
mortem of the deceased was conducted in SCB Medical College &
Hospital, Cuttack.
4.2. It is contended that though the deceased died due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. OD-19-J-9957 and the said vehicle was duly
insured with Respondent No. 2, but the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the materials placed before it, dismissed the
application vide the impugned judgment dtd.22.08.2022.
4.3. It is contended that on the face of the materials placed and the
evidence of P.W. 2, claim application could not have been dismissed
on the grounds indicated in the impugned order. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2-Company on
the other hand contended that alleging the death of the deceased in
the accident in question, no formal F.I.R. was lodged before the
local police. The claim application was filed, implicating the
offending motor cycle bearing Registration No. OD-19-J-9957, with
a stand that driver of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner while driving the same, made sudden application of the
brake and accordingly the deceased fell down from the motor cycle
and sustained multiple bodily injuries and head injury.
5.1. Subsequently, the deceased died while under treatment in
Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack. But it is contended that in the cross
examination, P.W. 1 clearly admitted that the deceased while was
landing from the motor cycle near her house, an unknown vehicle
hit her.
5.2. It is also contended that in the post mortem report so exhibited
vide Ext. 7, the Doctor opined the cause of death is due to vertebro
spinal injuries and its complication. The Medical Officer who
conducted the post mortem was never examined as an witness to
prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained because of
the accident in question. It is also contended that no formal F.I.R.
was ever lodged, nor documents showing that the offending vehicle
was duly insured with issuance of a policy covering the accident. It
is also contended that the documents of the alleged offending
vehicle as well as D.L. of the rider was never produced before the
Tribunal for verification. It is also contended that vide Ext. 5, the
fact that the deceased died as she was hit by an unknown vehicle
while getting down from the vehicle is clearly proved. It is
accordingly contended that since in his cross-examination P.W. 1
clearly admitted that while landing from the motor cycle near his
house an unknown vehicle hit the deceased, no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned order in dismissing the
claim application with passing of nil award.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming
grant of compensation for the alleged death of the deceased in a road
accident, which took place on 06.11.2017, claim application in
question was filed claiming grant of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
As borne from the record, no formal F.I.R. was lodged by the
Claimants or any other person alleging therein that the deceased
died due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. OD-19-J-9957.
6.1. It is also found from the record that P.W. 1 who happens to be a
Claimant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that the
deceased while was landing from the motor cycle near his house, an
unknown vehicle hit her. It is also found that no formal F.I.R. was
ever lodged implicating the offending vehicle nor the documents of
the offending vehicle was ever produced before the Tribunal. In
view of the statement of P.W. 1 in his cross-examination who is non
else than one of the Claimant, this Court finds no illegality or
irregularity with the impugned judgment.
7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same
and dismiss the appeal.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
