The Manager (Legal) vs Jyotsnarani Bal
2025 Latest Caselaw 5816 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Manager (Legal) vs Jyotsnarani Bal on 27 May, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             MACA No.1200 of 2018

            In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the
            Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

           The Manager (Legal),
           M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO
           General Insurance
           Company Ltd.                   ....            Appellant


                                    -versus-

           1. Jyotsnarani Bal
           2. Kokila Bal
           3. Pramod Kumar Bal
           4. Liparani Bal
           5. Deepak Kumar Bal
           6. Pritilata Sahu              ....        Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Date of hearing : 02.05.2025 Date of Judgment : 27.05.2025

V. Narasingh, J. The present MACA has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned M.A.C.T-III, Bhadrak in MAC No.134 of 2016 whereby learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of

Rs.8,42,584/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the widow and dependants of one Ananda Chandra Bal on account of his death in a vehicular accident allegedly on 2.9.2016 involving Bolero-pick up bearing registration number OD- 22B-8498, in which the deceased was working as a helper.

2. The Respondent No.1 is the widow of late Ananda Chandra Bal and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are children of the deceased and the said Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the mother of the deceased and Respondent No.6 is the owner of the offending vehicle.

Respondent Nos.1 to 5 as Claimants filed MAC No.134 of 2016, as noted above, claiming compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on account of the death of Ananda Chandra Bal in an accident involving Bolero-pick up bearing registration number OD- 22B-8498 in which he was working as a Helper. The accident allegedly took place on 2.9.2016.

The owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and the present Appellant as the Insurer was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2. The owner did not appear and was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2-Appellant herein

appeared and filed its written statement denying all the assertions in the claim petition.

2-A. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.OD-22B- 8498 ?

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to get any compensation and if so from whom and to what extent ?

3. To what other relief(s), the Petitioners are entitled ?"

To fortify their respective stands oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the Claimants and the Insurance Company. Of the documentary evidence, most vital one for adjudication of the case at hand is Ext.7, inquest report and Ext.A, endorsement in the said Ext.7.

2-B. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal rejected the stand of the Insurance Company-Appellant herein (Opposite Party No.2 before the learned Tribunal) that the accident in fact took place on 3.9.2016 and the insurance of the offending vehicle was valid till midnight of 2.9.2016. As such, false claim has been advanced. Thereafter, taking into account the monthly income

of the deceased and applying 14 multiplier and resorting to the doctrine of just compensation quantified the amount of compensation at Rs.8,42,584/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.09.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. A.A.Khan assails the award, inter alia, on the ground that the accident in fact took place on 2.9.2016. Learned Tribunal ought not to have discarded the entry in the endorsement of the inquest report (Ext.7) which was sought by the son of the deceased (P.W.3) that the date of accident is 3.9.2016 and submits that the same assumes significance since admittedly, the insurance was valid from 03.09.2015 15:38:42 to midnight on 02.09.2016 23:59:59 (Ext.C).

It is his further submission that the son of the deceased who had signed in the inquest report, namely, Pramod Kumar Bal, who is the Petitioner No.3 before the learned Tribunal and Respondent No.3 herein was examined as P.W.3 and has admitted in his deposition that he has signed in the inquest report Ext.7 and his endorsement has been marked as Ext.A.

In Ext.7, it is clearly stated that the accident took place on 3.9.2016 and referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the stand of the Insurance Company in its proper perspective and in fact glossed over the same.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that in view of filing of the charge sheet indicating that the accident took place on 2.9.2016 the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company are untenable. It is his further submission that P.W.3 has clearly stated that he did not know about the date of accident in his evidence which had withstood the scrutiny of cross-examination and no other material(s) have been brought on record to substantiate the claim of the Insurance Company that the accident in question did not take place on 2.9.2016 as stated. In this context, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Legal Head, M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Radharani Sahoo and others, 2022 (1) TAC 88 (Ori.).

5. In assessing the rival contentions, it would be apposite to refer to the analysis of the learned

Tribunal relating to the date of accident. The same has been made with reference to issue No.1.

On perusal of the recitals of the impugned award, it is seen that the learned Tribunal was alive to the fact that the insurance was valid till 2.9.2016 upto 23:59 P.M and also took note of the contention of the Appellant-Insurance Company contrary to the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company that though in fact the accident had taken place on 3.9.2016, a false claim is being made that the same has occurred on 2.9.2016 to get compensation from the Insurance Company.

In negativing such assertions of the Appellant-Insurance Company, learned Tribunal took note of the filing of the charge sheet, the evidence of P.W.3 and his stand during his cross- examination that "he put his signature in the inquest report as per the police officer and by that time due to his mental imbalance he was not able to say who wrote in Col.9 of the inquest report, Ext.A" and then arrived at a positive finding that the accident in question took place on 2.9.2016 and also relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mallama vrs. Balaji & others, 2003(2) TAC 428 (KNT).

Learned Tribunal was of the considered view that no rebuttal evidence could be adduced by the Insurance Company to fortify its stand that the accident took place on 2.9.2016 is a cooked up one.

6. On a conspectus of the evidence on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the stand of the Insurance Company that in fact the accident did not take place on 2.9.2016 as claimed but on 3.9.2016. Rather as discussed, on a cogent analysis of the evidence on record including referring to the evidence of P.W.3 on whose endorsement in the inquest report Ext.7 much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, learned Tribunal arrived at a positive finding that the accident took place on 2.9.2016.

There is no ground to differ from such finding of the learned Tribunal, on a scrutiny of the trial court record.

This Court also does not find any infirmity in the assessment of compensation in as much as applying the time tested doctrine of just compensation, learned Tribunal has directed payment of compensation of Rs.8,42,584/- against

a claim of Rs.8 lakhs. Interest component as awarded is also found to be just and equitable.

On a perspicuous analysis of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

7. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal and disburse the same amongst the Claimants proportionately as per the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

Within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the amount before the learned Tribunal, statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company on proper application.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 27th May, 2025/Pradeep

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 30-May-2025 10:39:37