The court upheld the insurer's liability for compensation in a fatal accident despite challenges to the driver's license and policy conditions, recalibrating the compensation amount based on income assessment.

JUDGMENT :

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 1^st 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 occur