The court reaffirmed the necessity of summoning the Investigating Officer in motor vehicle accident claims, stressing statutory compliance and judicial oversight in ensuring fair adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the 1^st M.A.C.T.-Cum-District Judge, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No.80 of 2020, vide which the petition dated 15.09.2023 filed by the Petitioner Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) to summon the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to examine him was rejected on the ground that such petition filed by the Petitioner Insurance Company does not deserve any merit.

2. The brief background facts, which led to filing of the present Writ Petition, as alleged by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4, who are claimants before the Court below, are that on 15.03.2019 at about 12.00 A.M. (Noon), while the deceased Kalpana Dash was returning from Udala from Tentulibhadi Primary School by sitting as a pillion rider in a Hero Deluxe Motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-11- B-3554, which was being driven by her colleague i.e. Headmaster of the said school namely, Sishir Kumar Padhi on the left side of the road, at that time another motor cycle i.e. Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration No.OR-01-G-8095 was also coming in the same direction and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the back side of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.OD-11-B-3554, as a result of which the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.OD-11-B-3554 fell down on the road. The deceased pillion rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous head injury and other injuries and the rider of the motor cycle sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, the rider and pillion rider were shifted to S.D. Hospital, Udala, where the pillion rider Kalpana Dash succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition has been filed by the husband and daughters of the deceased claiming compensation before the Court below.

After receiving notice from the Court below, the Petitioner Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement disputing the alleged accident so also its liability, followed by a petition dated 15.09.2023 to summon the I.O. to adduce evidence in M.A.C. Case No.80 of 2020. To justify the said prayer, a ground was taken to the effect that there are serious discrepancies in the pleadings of the claimants in the claim petition and in the evidence on record as to the cause and manner of accident and alleged involvement of the offending vehicle. On filing of such petition, the case was put up on 29.09.2023 for filing of objection by the claimants to the petition dated 15.09.2023 filed by the Insurance Company (Present Petitioner) so also hearing of the said petition. Though no written objection was filed in response to the said petition filed by the Insurance Company, the Court below, after hearing both the sides, rejected the said petition on the very same day taking a view therein that the I.O. is not at all required to be examined in the said case.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Despite service of notice, all the claimants, those who have been arrayed as i.e. Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4, so also owner of the vehicle, who has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.5, go unrepresented.

4. To substantiate the prayer made in the Writ Petition to set aside the order dated 29.09.2023 passed in M.A.C. Case No.80 of 2020 and direct the Court below to allow the prayer made vide petition dated 15.09.2023 to summon the concerned I.O., Mr. Mahali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Insurance Company, relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others , (2023) 4 SCC 381 so also various provisions under the Mo