Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Rani Samal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Gadadhar Behera & Anr. - Respondents
Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 358 of 2015, 359 of 2015, 1075 of 2015, 1076 of 2015
Decided On : 19-03-2021
A.A. Khan, Advocate, R. Pati, Advocate, S.K. Mishra, Advocate, S. Ganesh, Advocate, S.K. Sahoo, Advocate, S.N. Kar, Advocate, A.C. Behera, Advocate, S.K. Behera, Advocate, P.K. Nayak, Advocate, B. Ganthia, Advocate, S. Satapathy, Advocate, B.C. Ghadei, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Insurance Company to establish the inapplicability of the Cover Note to the case in order to challenge the compensation claims.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident - Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C. - The court discussed the applicability of the Insurance Policy involving the offending Truck and the accident, and found that the Insurance Company failed to establish its case, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals at the instance of the Insurance Company.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of two individuals in a road accident, leading to separate claim cases by the legal heirs of the deceased persons for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the Claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the Claimants in both the cases. The court also remitted the matter for re-calculation of compensation based on the wages earned by the deceased persons at the relevant time.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the driver of the offending vehicle, entitlement of the petitioners to compensation, liability of the opposite parties, and other relief(s) the petitioners were entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Insurance Company failed to establish the inapplicability of the Cover Note to the case, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals at the instance of the Insurance Company. The court also directed the re-calculation of compensation based on the wages earned by the deceased persons.
Final Decision: MACA Nos.1075 & 1076 of 2015 involving the Insurance Company were dismissed, while MACA Nos.358 & 359 of 2015 were allowed with a direction for re-calculation of compensation.
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Rath, J. - The Appeals bearing MACA Nos.358 & 359 of 2015 are at the instance of the Claimants for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas Appeals bearing MACA Nos.1075 & 1076 of 2015 are at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging liability and quantum as well. All the Appeals arise out of a common judgment involving death of two individuals arising out of one accident but entering into two independent claim cases. For the consent of learned counsel for the Parties and the commonness in the Appeals, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Background involving the case is that the deceased persons involving all the Appeals faced accident by the offending Truck bearing Regn.No.OR-04-E-7707 alleged to have come in high speed being driven rashly and negligently dashed against both the deceased persons resulting in both the deceased sustained grievous injury on their persons and ultimately also succumbed to injuries. The legal heirs of both the deceased persons, as Claimants involving MACA Nos.358 & 359 of 2015 claimed compensation on the pretext of loss of their sole bread-earners, who were having Grocery business jointly and while they were having their morning walk met with an accident involving the offending Truck involved herein and resulted in their death. The Claimants claimed that deceased persons were earning Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The Claimant involving the deceased, Fakir Charan Sethy filed MAC Case No.624/2011 and the Claimant involving Krushna Chandra Samal filed MAC Case No.625/2011. Both the Claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh each. It also reveals, involving the said accident there also involved a Police case bearing Paradeep Lock P.S. Case No.24/2009 under Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C. involving the offending Truck and the Driver involved therein. Upon notice, the Owner of the offending Truck did not appear involving both the cases, consequently the Owner in both the cases got ex parte but however the Insurance Company on its appearance resisted the claims having a common set of case. While denying the liability, the Insurance Company rather called upon the Claimants in both the cases to be put to strict proof of the averments in their respective claim petitions and in the premises, the Insurance Company claimed dismissal of both the cases.
3. On the basis of pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-
"(I) Whether due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-04-E-7707, the accident took place resulting in the death of deceased Fakira Charan Sethy and Krushna Chandra Samal ?
(II) Whether the respective petitioners in both the cases are entitled to get compensation, and if so, to what extent ?
(III) Whether the common opposite parties or any of them are/is liable to pay compensation to the respective petitioners in both the cases ?
(IV) What other relief(s), if any, the petitioners in both the cases are entitled to ?"
4. To substantiate their cases, Claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3. Similarly Opposite Party No.2 therein examined one witness as D.W.1. Claimants exhibited Exts.1 to 12, whereas the Insurance Company exhibited Exts.A & B. Based on the evidence and the pleading of the Parties as well as the material disclosure through the Exhibits, the Tribunal in disposal of both the MAC Cases held all the findings in favour of the Claimants and as a consequence, while allowing the Cases on contest against Opposite Party No.2 and ex parte against Opposite Party No.1, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, Opposite Party No.2 therein to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,056/- and Rs.1,22,056/- in favour of the Claimants involving both the MAC Cases respectively in equal proportion along with interest @ 6% per annum in each case with effect from 21.9.2011 being the common date of filing of the claim petitions at least within a period of one month from the date of the j
