Insurer found liable for compensation as deceased was confirmed as a helper, and the driver held a valid license during pandemic lockdown extensions.

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(hereinafter referred to as the ”Insurer”) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.290 of 2020 directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.13,89,472/- together with simple interest (SI) @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 11.12.2020 till realization to the claimants for the death of their son in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the accident which gives rise to the present appeal took place on 21.11.2020 at about 3.45 AM when one Biswajit Maity (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) a helper by profession while proceeding to Bhubaneswar from Kolkata Airport in a container truck bearing Regd. No.WB-25G-3877 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed from behind another truck near Haladipada bypass on NH60 resulting in injury to the deceased leading to his death. It was claimed by the claimants that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident was registered vide Basta PS Case No.267 of 2020, which culminated in submission of charge-sheet. The claimants being the parents of the deceased had approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act for compensation for the loss of their sole bread earner-cum-deceased in a motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and the proceeding was accordingly registered as MAC Case No.290 of 2020.

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim in MAC Case No.290 of 2020, the owner of the offending vehicle-cum-R-3 did not prefer to appear despite valid service of notice and he was, accordingly, set ex parte, whereas the insurer being represented by the Senior Executive had filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants and inter-alia avoiding its liability by stating in its WS that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective license.

3. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal struck as many as four issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, claimants produced oral evidence of two witnesses vide PWs.1 & 2 and proved 10 documents under Exts.1 to 10 as against oral evidence of one witness vide OPW1 and documentary evidence of 4 documents under Exts.A to D by the insurer. After analyzing the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the insurer to satisfy the award and being aggrieved with such award, the insurer is before this Court in this appeal.

4. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Bishnubrata Singh, learned counsel for RNos.1 & 2 in the appeal and perused the record. The notice against the owner-cum- R3 stood dispensed with at the inception and it was, accordingly, considered that if the owner would be liable, then in that event, notice would be issued to R3-cum-owner.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties upon perusal of record, this Court has summarized the following points for determination:-

“(i) whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or helper;

(ii) whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective license as on the date of accident;

(iii) whether the award is excessive or exorbitant.”

In answering the first point, it appears that the learned Tribunal vide paragraph-7.1 of the impugned jud