From The Judgment/Order Dated ... vs Sunil Ku. Parija & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 5210 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5210 Ori
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2025

Orissa High Court

From The Judgment/Order Dated ... vs Sunil Ku. Parija & Anr on 21 March, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        MACA No.438 OF 2020
       From the Judgment/Order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the
    learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No.250/547 of
    2003.

    Basanta Kumari Pradhan & Anr. ::::                   Appellants

                                    -:: VERSUS ::-

    Sunil Ku. Parija & Anr.                ::::          Respondents


    For Appellants          ::::      Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                        (Claimants)

    For Respondents         ::::      Mr. N. Das, Advocate
                                       (Respondent No. 2)

                                   .........

PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing- 21.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment- 21.03.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellants-Claimants and Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for

// 2 //

Respondent No. 2. In spite of appearance nobody is there on behalf

of Respondent No. 1 when the matter was called.

3. The present appeal has been filed challenging Judgment

dtd.02.12.2019 so passed by the learned 3 rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in

MAC Case No. 250/547 of 2003.

4. It is contended that the Appellants-Claimants filed the aforesaid

claim case under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act in respect of the accident

caused by the offending vehicle on 06.10.2001, causing death of the

deceased.

4.1. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for

the Appellant that, basing on the F.I.R. lodged and after completion

of the investigation, not only the offending vehicle which was

insured with the Respondent No. 2-Company was charge-sheeted

but also the driver of the offending vehicle was made an accused in

the said case. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant also

produced the photocopy of the charge-sheet in support of the

aforesaid submission.

4.2. It is contended that since the offending vehicle was charge-

sheeted and the driver of the offending vehicle was made as an

// 3 //

accused, there was no occasion on the part of the Tribunal to

disbelieve the claim of the Appellants. But by taking recourse to the

disparity in the evidence laid, the Tribunal rejected the application.

4.3. It is also contended that since grant of compensation under the

provisions of Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is a beneficial one, strict

adherence to the rule of law is not required to be followed. In

support of the same, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants

relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita

& Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporaton & Anr.

reported in 2019 (1) TAC 710 (S.C.). Hon'ble Apex Court in Para

20 has held as follows:-

"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in e in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."

// 4 //

4.3. It is also contended that since the offending vehicle has been

charge-sheeted and the driver of the offending vehicle has been

made as an accused, in view of the recent Supreme Court decision,

no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being

negligently driven by the Bus driver. Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. in Para 4, has

held as follows:-

"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."

4.4. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal has rejected the

claim application illegally and the same is not sustainable in the eye

of law.

4.5. Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.

2-Company on the other hand while supporting the impugned order

contended that since the Tribunal after due appreciation of the

evidence laid by the Parties has come to a conclusion that the claim

// 5 //

application is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same

with passing of a nil award, it requires no interference.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming