State Of Odisha vs Lopinti Menaka And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1964 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Odisha vs Lopinti Menaka And Others on 6 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    MACA No.790 of 2024

   (In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
   the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

   State of Odisha                        ...           Appellant
                               -versus-

   Lopinti Menaka and others              ...        Respondents

   For Appellant               : Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC

   For Respondents             : Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate
                                 (for RNos.1 to 4)
                                 Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
                                 (for R-5)

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

              DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2026
              DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06.03.2026
G. Satapathy, J.

1. The State of Odisha is in an appeal

U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, "the

Act") against the impugned judgment dated

24.03.2023 passed by the learned 1st Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi (hereinafter

referred to as the "Tribunal") in MAC Case No.03 of

2021 directing the State to pay a sum of

Rs.31,92,000/- to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-cum-

claimants in MAC No.03 of 2021 for the death of their

sole bread earner Lopinti Rama Rao (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicular

accident.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the present

appeal arises out of MAC No.03 of 2021 filed by the

claimants-(R1 to 4) for compensation towards death of

the deceased in an accident which took place on

30.11.2018 when the Truck bearing Regd. No.AP-07-

TT-3299 (in short, "the Truck") belonging to the

deceased under requisition of rent of the Gajapati

District Administration to provide relief to the people

affected with cyclone „Titili‟ being driven by one A.

Narayan Rao was carrying 2997 numbers of black

colour blankets together with the deceased and one

Government official namely Malay Kumar Tripathy

from Paralakhemundi to unload the consignment at

Mohana Block, Gajapati, on the way on NH-326-A near

Badapada Chhak turning, it capsized by hitting the

guard wall of the curve resulting in death of the

deceased and the other two occupants in the accident.

On this accident, R.Udayagiri PS Case No.77 of 2018

was registered and the legal representatives of the

deceased approached the learned Tribunal in an

application U/S.166 of the Act for compensation by

impleading the State of Odisha and insurer of the

Truck and pleading inter-alia that the deceased was

earning Rs.30,000/- per month and maintaining

them(claimants), but due to death of the deceased,

they are unable to maintain themselves.

In response to the notice of the claim, the

State of Odisha (appellant herein) contested the claim

by filing its written statement denying its liability to

compensate the claimants, but it admitted the

accident with death of the deceased, however, it took

further plea that it has paid Rs.4,00,000/- as a ex-

gratia compensation to the claimants. The State of

Odisha also took further plea in its written statement

that since the deceased was the owner of the Truck

and died in the accident out of use of such vehicle; he

is, thereby, not the 3rd party and the claimants claim

for compensation cannot be considered as 3rd party

claim. The insurer of the Truck in its written statement

denied its liability to pay compensation to the

claimants on the ground that since the State had

requisitioned the Truck, it was the owner of the said

Truck at the relevant time of accident and, thereby,

the State is liable for the act of its driver and it,

therefore, is liable to pay compensation to the

claimants.

3. On inter-se pleadings between the parties,

the learned Tribunal struck six issues and, accordingly,

allowed the parties to lead evidence, but the claimants

only led evidence by examining three witnesses vide

PWs.1 to 3 and proved 17 documents under Exts.1 to

17 as against no evidence whatsoever by the State or

the insurer of the Truck. After analyzing the evidence

on record upon hearing the parties, the learned

Tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the

State to pay the compensation indicating supra to the

claimants together with simple interest @ 6% per

annum w.e.f. filing of petition from 31.03.2021 till

realization, but being aggrieved, the State of Odisha

has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground to shift

the liability of paying compensation to Respondent-

insurer (R5).

4. Heard, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pati, learned

Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. Soubhagya

Kumar Dash, learned counsel for R1 to 4 and Mr.

Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for R5 in the appeal

and perused the record.

5. A careful consideration of the rival

submissions together with the appeal memo, it

unambiguously appears that the State of Odisha

challenges the impugned judgment to avoid its liability

to pay compensation to the claimants mainly on the

ground that the Truck in question belongs to the

deceased, who being its registered owner and the

vehicle being insured with R5 (OP2in MAC No.03 of

2021), the State cannot be made liable to pay the

compensation to the claimants as the owner of the

Truck. In answering such issue, the undisputed factual

position is that the Truck in question belonging to the

deceased was taken on rent by the appellant at the

relevant time of accident for its use in providing relief

to the cyclone „Titili‟ affected people. The occurrence of

accident and death of the deceased in such accident

are/were never disputed by any of the parties, but the

legal question emerges for consideration in this appeal

is who is liable to pay the compensation to the

claimants. In order to dispute its liability, the State of

Odisha claims himself to be not the owner of the

Truck. It is no more res integra that Section 149 of the

Act casts a duty on the insurer to satisfy the judgment

and award against person insured in respect of 3rd

party risks. In this case, the factual position is that the

deceased was the registered owner of the Truck and

R5(OP2) was his insurer, but the Truck in question

met with the accident when such Truck was in active

control and possession of the State of Odisha at the

relevant time. No doubt, the deceased was the

registered owner, but in such factual situation, who

would be considered as the owner of the Truck for the

purpose of discharging the liability for the death of the

deceased arising out of use of such Truck is the real

question to be answered in this situation. Section

2(30) of the Act provides for the definition of owner,

which reads as under:-

"2(30). "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

6. The undisputed fact is that the Truck in

question was under the rent of the District

Administration at the relevant time of accident for

performing relief work and, thereby, the Truck can be

well considered to be under the requisition of the State

of Odisha to perform public duty. It can never be

disputed that the State of Odisha was in active control

and possession of the Truck at the relevant time of

accident and, therefore, following the definition of the

owner as provided in Section 2(30) of the Act, the

State of Odisha being in active possession of the Truck

under a contract of rent is considered to be the owner

of the Truck at the relevant time, but the deceased

cannot be considered as an owner at the relevant time

having parted with the control and possession of the

Truck to the State of Odisha. In this regard, this Court

is fortified with the decision in Naveen Kumar Vrs.

Vijay Kumar and others; (2018) 3 SCC 1, wherein

the Apex Court at paragraph-11 has held as under:-

"11. The above observations would indicate that a combination of circumstances cumulatively weighed with this Court. Significantly, for the purposes of the present discussion, what emerges from the above judgment is the circumstance that the motor vehicle was on the date of the accident requisitioned by the State Government. Requisitioning by its very nature is involuntary insofar as the person whose property is requisitioned is concerned. This Court observed that it is the person in control and possession of a vehicle which is under an agreement of lease, hypothecation or hire purchase who is construed as the owner and not the registered owner. The same analogy was drawn to hold that where the vehicle had been requisitioned, it was the State and not the registered owner who had possession and control and would hence be held liable to compensate. Purnya Kala Devi Vrs. State of Assam; (2014) 14 SCC 142 does not hold that a

person who transfers the vehicle to another but continues to be the registered owner under Section 2(30) in the records of the Registering Authority is absolved of liability. The situation which arose before the Court in that case must be borne in mind because it was in the context of a compulsory act of requisitioning by the State that this Court held, by analogy of reasoning, that the registered owner was not liable."

7. No doubt, the learned counsel for the

State has relied upon the decision in Uttar Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation Vrs. Kulsum

and others; (2011) 8 SCC 142, but on a respectful

consideration of such decision, it is found

distinguishable from the facts of the present case

inasmuch as in the relied on case, the appellant and

owner of the vehicle had specifically agreed that the

vehicle will be insured and a driver would be provided

by the owner of the vehicle, but overall control, not

only on the vehicle, but also on the driver, would be

that of the State Road Transport Corporation. In the

present case, there is no such agreement between the

deceased and the State of Odisha. Besides, the State

of Odisha while plying the Truck has not entered into

any contract with the insurance company for using

such vehicle nor has it sought for any permission of

the insurance company/insurer. In addition, the

evidence on record also suggests that the Truck in

question was carrying some relief materials like

blankets and an official representative was travelling in

such Truck at the relevant time together with the

deceased and, therefore, the State of Odisha being the

deemed owner of the Truck is liable to pay

compensation against the 3rd party claims and the

claimants being the legal representatives of the

deceased, who was not in actual control and

possession of the Truck at the relevant time of

accident being the Truck requisitioned by the

State/District Administration can be well considered as

3rd party for the purpose of compensation. In such

view of the discussions, the plea as advanced by the

State of Odisha, however, is found unmerited only

liable to be rejected. Accordingly, such plea, being

misconceived is hereby rejected.

8. In coming to the other issues, the income

and avocation of the deceased was never disputed by

the State of Odisha and the compensation as computed

by the learned Tribunal is never challenged by the

appellant either in its appeal memo or by producing any

documents. Additionally, on a careful scrutiny of the

computation of compensation as undertaken by the

learned Tribunal, this Court hardly finds any error

apparent on record; rather the learned Tribunal has

taken all the aspects of income of the deceased and

calculated the compensation for the claimants by duly

applying the law. In computing the compensation, the

learned Tribunal has rightly followed the rulings of the

Apex Court in extending future prospect to the income of

the deceased as well as providing some amount under

non-pecuniary head of damages and applying right

multiplier method. Further, the claimants have not filed

any cross-objection to challenge the quantum of

compensation. In such view of the matter, this Court

concur the other findings of the learned Tribunal

including the determination of compensation. Hence,

there nothing remains to be adjudicated in this appeal,

which merits no consideration.

9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as

to costs. The appellant is, hereby, directed to satisfy the

award within eight weeks hence failing which the

claimants are at liberty to realize the same through the

process of law. In case deposit of the compensation by

the appellant, the same shall be disbursed to the

claimants proportionately in terms of the award. The

appellant is entitled to refund back the statutory deposit

together with accrued interest thereon on production of

proof of deposit of compensation before the learned

Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita

Location: High Court of Orissa