IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.932 of 2023 (An appeal U/S. 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988).

Mamata Nayak and another …. Appellants -versus-

Sunita Dhal & Others …. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. N. Mohanty, Advocate(R-2)

Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate(R Nos. 3-6)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10.03.2025 G. Satapathy, J.

1. This appeal U/S. 173 of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the Appellants is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by learned 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam (In short the “Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 21 of 2020 directing the Respondent No.2(R2) to pay a sum of Rs. 18,87,244/- (Rs. Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Forty Four) only together with the interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f 18.02.2020 to the Appellants-Petitioners and Respondent Nos.3 to 6(R3 to 6) proportionately in an application U/S. 166 of the Act.

2. The facts in precise are that on 29.01.2020 at about 3PM, the husband of Appellant No.1(A1) namely Sunila Nayak while being travelling as a passenger in a Bus bearing Registration No. OR-05AB- 3530 from Rayagada to Berhampur died in the accident, which occurred when the Bus lost control and felled to a depth of 30 feet from the road near village Palukhola, Taptapani Ghat due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. On this incident, a police case was registered in Pattapur PS Case No. 15 of 2020 and charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending Bus for offence U/Ss. 279/304-A of the IPC. Accordingly, the present Appellants filed an application U/S. 166 of the Act before the learned tribunal in MAC Case No. 21 of 2020 and simultaneously the R3 to 6 filed another application in MAC No.38 of 2020 before the 8^th MACT, Ganjam at Aska for compensation due to death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident. However, MAC No. 38 of 2020 was withdrawn and the Applicants therein were arrayed as OP Nos. 3 to 6 in MAC Case No. 21 of 2020. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of death and he was working as a driver in a school bus and earning @ 21,000/- per month. Accordingly, the claimants in MAC Case No. 21 of 2020 claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-, whereas the claimants in MAC No. 38 of 2020, who are R3 to 6 in this appeal claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of the deceased by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. In response to the notice of the claim, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim and was accordingly, set exparte on 29.09.2022, but the insurer of the offending vehicle who is the R2 in this appeal filed its written statement denying the claim of the claimants with regard to age, income and profession of the deceased. Additionally, the insurer-R2 also took a plea that it is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, since the driver was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Be it noted, OP Nos. 3 to 6, while being arrayed in the claim in MAC No. 21 of 2020 as Opposite Parties came with a plea in their written statement that the claimant-wife and son being paid with a ex gratia compensation from Chief Minister’s Relief Fund did not pay a single pie to them and they further claimed for payment of compensation to them in equal proportion, since they are not only the natural legal heirs of the deceased, but also dependents on him.

4. After having considered the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal struck with three issues relating to cause of death of the deceased & accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus; entitlement of the claimants and R3 to 6; and liability of OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal accordingly, allowed the parties to lead evidence and in support of th