IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.848 of 2016

In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Rina Das …. Appellant

-versus-

1. Sk. Abdul Kadir

2. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. …. Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. B. Singh, Advocate (R-1)

Mr.S. Nayak, Advocate (R-2)

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

D ate of hearing & Judgment : 19.08.2025

V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-

Claimant and learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. The Appellant–Claimant assailing the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned 3^rd M.A.C.T, Balasore in MAC No.144/284 of 2010/2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. from 24.12.2005 within a period of three months, failing which, the amount shall carry

interest at the rate of 12% per annum, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount by saddling the liability upon the Insurance Company instead of the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The case of the Claimant is that on 28.9.2005 while she was proceeding from Chasakhanda to Balasaore with her husband as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration number OR-01C-6679, the offending tractor bearing registration number OR- 01D-5229 coming from opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle near Baghajatin turning on N.H.60 as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter she was shifted to the hospital for treatment. As such claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. In such claim application, the owner of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the claim application denying his liability on the ground that the vehicle was validly insured with the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company vide policy No.345700/2005/1713 from 09.12.2004 to 08.12.2005 covering the date of accident. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company was Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its written statement opposing the claim.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;

“1. Is the petitioner entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount ?

2. Whether the owner or the insurance company liable to pay compensation ?

3. To what relief, the petitioner is entitled to ?

In order to substantiate her stand, Claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and fourteen documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 14.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company On consideration of the materials on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. from 24.12.2005 within a period of three months, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum and saddled the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, Mr. Mishra submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law in disbelieving the evidence of the Claimant as well as the written statement of the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle in question was validly insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No.345700/2005/1713 and the same was valid from 9.12.2004 till 8.12.2005 covering the date of accident. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside by saddling the liability upon the Insurance Company and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

He further submits that the learned Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the Claimant and came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle had no valid insurance and saddled the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the owner of the offending vehicle had specifically admitted in his written statement that there was a valid policy reflecting the policy number, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and liability should be saddled with the Ins