The court found that mere consumption of alcohol by the deceased did not bar compensation claims as it lacked evidence of contributing to the accident, affirming that liability rests upon the negligent actions of the motorcycle rider.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This is an appeal U/S.173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (in short “the Act”) by the appellant-insurer calling in question the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.1287 of 2019 awarding compensation of Rs.11,18,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the claim application i.e. 18.10.2019 in an application U/S. 166 of the Act for the loss of the sole bread earner of the family in a motor vehicular accident.

2. The short facts required for disposal of this appeal and the cross-objection filed by the Respondents-Claimants are that on 15.05.2019 at about 7P.M. in the evening while Binod Dalai (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was going to Jajpur side in a motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OD-04- M-2647 (Hero Motor cycle) as a pillion rider, suddenly the rider of the motorcycle lost its control at Malada Chhak and applied for brake, for which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injuries leading to his admission initially at CHC, Jajpur, but subsequently being serious referred to SCB MCH, Cuttack, where he succumbed to injuries on 08.06.2019 while undergoing treatment. According to the R-1 to 3-cum-claimants, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and the deceased was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his profession as mason and they have spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards the treatment of the deceased. On the aforesaid averments, the R-1 to 3-cum-claimants filed an application before the learned Tribunal praying to grant compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- by impleading the insurer and owner of the motorcycle as Ops in such claim application.

2.1. In reply to the notice of the claim, the appellant who was the OP No.2 before the learned Tribunal filed its written statement denying all the assertions made against the insurance company and it inter-alia has pleaded that the claim is not maintainable for the accident occurring on account of consumption of liquor by the deceased. On the other hand, the owner- cum-R-4 who was OP No.1 before the learned Tribunal filed his separate written statement denying the claim and his liability by questioning the maintainability of the claim application.

3. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal stuck five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the claimants-R-1 to 3 examined 03 witnesses and relied upon documents under Ext.1 to 11, as against two documentary evidence under Exts A & B by the insurer-cum- appellant together with oral evidence of two witnesses, who are the doctor and the police.

4. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment granting compensation of Rs.11,18,000/- to the R-1 to 3-cum-claimants together with interest @ 6% per annum with apportionment of the compensation amount. Being aggrieved with the award, the appellant-insurer preferred this appeal, but being dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant filed cross-objection which is already available on record.

5. Heard, Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants-R-1 to 3-cum-cross-objector. None appears for R-4, who albeit being represented by a counsel to counter the submission advanced for the parties.

6. The primary questions as emanated from the rival submissions are the maintainability of the claim and the quantum of compensation, since the appellant-insurer claims the claim to be n