The Manager vs Arati Kumari Tripathy And
2026 Latest Caselaw 2030 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Manager vs Arati Kumari Tripathy And on 7 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                MACA No.1208 of 2025
   (In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
   the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

   The Manager, Legal, The      ...                     Appellants
   Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
   Bhubaneswar and another
                       -versus-
   Arati Kumari Tripathy and              ...     Respondents
   others

   For Appellants           : Mr. S. Roy, Advocate

   For Respondents          : Mr. H.S. Satapathy,
                              Advocate (for R-1 to 4)
                              None(For R-5)
       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.03.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") by the insurance

company (in short, "the insurer") challenges the

impugned judgment dated 20.08.2025 passed by the

learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jajpur

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Case

No.77 of 2024 directing the insurer to pay a sum of

Rs.61,51,016/- together with simple interest @ 6% per

annum w.e.f. 20.06.2024 till its actual realization to the

claimants-R-1 to 4 for the death of their predecessor in

interest Narayan Rath (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased") in a Motor vehicular accident.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the present appeal

arises out of an accident that took place on 26.03.2024

at about 10 PM, when the deceased while being

travelling from Jeypore to Berhampur as a passenger in

a bus named as "Khambeswari" bearing Regd. No.OD-

07-Y-9181 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending

bus") being driven rash and negligently by its driver

capsized near Podagada Panchabati, Koraput resulting in

death of the deceased at the spot, but the deceased was

aged about 49 years and he was working as an Auto

driver. This accident was in fact reported to the police

and Koraput Sadar PS Case No.68 of 2024 was registered

which resulted in submission of charge-sheet against the

driver of the offending bus. On this accident, the legal

representatives of the deceased approached the learned

Tribunal as claimants in an application U/S.166 of the Act

for compensation towards the death of their sole bread

earner by impleading the owner and insurer of the

offending bus. Accordingly, the claim of the claimants/R-1

to 4 was registered vide MAC Case No.77 of 2024.

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC

Case No.77 of 2024), the owner of the offending bus

did not prefer to contest the claim and was,

accordingly, set ex parte, whereas the insurer of the

offending bus appeared and filed its written statement

disowning its liability on various grounds including non-

disclosure of material facts and maintainability of the

claim, so also for the driver of the offending bus not

having any valid and effective driving license.

3. On the inter-se pleading between the parties,

the learned Tribunal struck as many as five issues and

allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the

claimants examined three witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3

and proved 18 documents under Exts.1 to 18 as against

the solitary documentary evidence under Ext.A by the

insurer. After appreciating the evidence on record upon

hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the

impugned judgment directing the insurer to satisfy the

award indicated supra. Being aggrieved with the

impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this

appeal.

4. Heard, Mr. Somnath Roy, learned counsel for

the appellants-insurers and Mr. Himansu Sekhar

Satapathy, learned counsel for R-1 to 4, but none

appears for the R-5-owner despite valid service of

notice of the appeal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the

parties upon perusal of record, it primarily appears to

the Court that the challenge of the insurer is limited to

the quantum of compensation, its liability to satisfy the

award and the imposition of penal interest @ 12% per

annum, if the award is not satisfied within two months

of passing of the impugned judgment, but there is

hardly any dispute about accident occurring due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending bus, which is

evident from the documentary evidence on record

under Exts.1 to 8 together with the oral evidence of

PWs. 1 to 3, which could not be validly disputed by the

insurer. Accordingly, this Court concurs with the finding

of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus,

however, the insurer has disputed the driving license of

the driver of the offending bus, but it has not produced

any documentary evidence to dispute the driving

license of the driver of the offending bus to be not valid

at the relevant time of accident. In absence of any

reliable evidence contrary to the finding of the learned

Tribunal for driver having valid and effective driving

license, this Court does not consider it proper to

conclude that the driver was not having any valid and

effective license, rather it is found by this Court that

the driver was having valid and effective driving license

at the relevant time of accident.

6. On coming back to the core issue of challenge

as laid by the insurer with regard to quantum of

compensation, it appears that the learned Tribunal has

computed the loss of dependency for the claimants by

mainly relying upon the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for

the assessment year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-

2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 under Exts.12 to 15

and 17. Admittedly, the deceased died on 26.03.2024

and, therefore, the assessment year of 2024-2025

would be considered relevant, however, ITR of AY for

2024-25 has not been produced by the claimants. It is

not in dispute that Ext.15 ITR of AY 2023-2024 shows

the gross annual income of the deceased at

Rs.4,98,750/-, but the learned Tribunal has taken the

average of the aforesaid five ITRs to arrive at the

annual income of the deceased at Rs.4,98,380/-, which

in the circumstance appears to be correct. Since the

deceased was aged about 49 years, an addition of 25%

to the aforesaid amount towards future prospect of the

deceased is considered relevant. Accordingly, the

aforesaid amount would come to Rs.4,98,380/- +

Rs.1,24,595/- (25% of Rs.4,98,380/-) = Rs.6,22,975/-.

It is, however, made clear that since the gross annual

income of the deceased was taken at Rs.4,98,380/-

which was not taxable during the AY 2023-2024 and,

therefore, no amount was deducted towards payment

of income tax of the deceased. Further, there are four

dependents of the deceased and, therefore, 1/4th of the

aforesaid amount is required to be deducted towards

personal living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the

annual contribution of the deceased would be quantified

at 3/4th X Rs.6,22,975/- = Rs.4,67,232/-. In this case,

a multiplier of 13 is considered applicable. Thus, the net

annual loss of dependency of the claimant is quantified

as Rs.4,67,232/- X 13 = Rs.60,74,016/-. Additionally,

the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-

towards general damages under non-conventional

heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of

love and affection etc. Accordingly, the net

compensation for the claimants is calculated, at

Rs.60,74,016/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.61,44,016/-.

7. No doubt, the insurer has taken the plea of

violation of policy condition by R5 to avoid its liability to

compensation to the claimants for the offending bus

being plied on a route without having valid route

permit, but the route permit of the offending bus was

valid one at the relevant time and it was plying on the

same route in which it was authorized to ply.

Accordingly, such plea as advanced for the insurer

being unmerited is, hereby, rejected. Besides, the

claimants are also entitled to simple interest @ 6% per

annum, but they are not entitled to any penal interest,

which was in fact imposed by the learned Tribunal

inasmuch as imposition of penal interest is not

contemplated under the scheme of the Act and the

statutory provision of the Act provides for carrying

appeal to different forums within the time provided

and, therefore, imposition of penal interest in this

circumstance for not satisfying the award within two

months of passing of the order appears to be onerous

and is, accordingly, waived out.

8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part

on contest against the claimant-R-1 to 4, but ex parte

against the owner-R5, however, there is no order as to

costs and consequently, the impugned judgment is

modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the

insurer is liable to pay the modified compensation

amount of Rs.61,44,016/- together with the simple

interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of

claim application on 20.06.2024 till its actual realization

to the claimants-R-1 to 4 proportionately in terms of

the award with slight modification of fixed deposit of

Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of R-3-Swagatika Rath,

since she is going to attain majority on 1st April, 2026

and she be paid with cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. The insurer

is, accordingly, directed to pay the aforesaid modified

compensation amount to the claimants-R1 to 4 within

eight weeks hence by depositing the same before the

learned Tribunal. On such deposit of modified

compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to

the claimants proportionately in terms of the award

with modification of payment in respect of R3. The

statutory deposit together with accrued interest thereon

be refunded back to the insurer on production of proof of

deposit of modified compensation amount before the

learned Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7th day of March, 2026/Subhasmita

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Mar-2026 11:49:10