IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.1269 of 2016

In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance

….

Company Ltd. Appellant

-versus-

1. Swadhin Meher

….

2.Prakash Chandra Naik

Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. R.C. Sahoo, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate

(R-1)

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 D a t e of Judgment : 19.08.2025

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

Insurance Company and learned counsel for the

Respondent-Claimant.

2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned 3^rd M.A.C.T, Bargarh in M.A.C No.161/24 of 2009-16 awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in the case of

grievous injuries along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 11.11.2009, i.e. the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

3. The brief facts of the case of the Claimant is that on 12.02.2014, the Claimant-Swadhin Meher was going to the football field by walking on the extreme left side of the road. The offending tractor bearing Registration number RJ-19-R-6587 and its Trolley bearing Registration number OR-17-C-1447 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the offending vehicle dashed against the Claimant as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. As such, claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.

The owner of the offending vehicle was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“ i) If the claim petition is maintainable ?

ii) If the petitioner had sustained serious injuries and 50% permanent Loco-motor disability due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Regd. No.- R.J.-19-R-6587 and Trolley bearing Regd. No.- O.R.-17-C-1447 in Bijepur road on 12.02.2004 at about 4 p.m.? , iii) If the petitioner is entitled to receive any compensation, if so, then to what extent and from whom ? , iv) If the petitioner is entitled to receive any other relief(s) ?”

In order to substantiate his claim, Claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and documents were exhibited on his behalf as Exts.1 to 7/1.

No witness was examined by the Insurance Company but documents were marked as Exts.A to C.

Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Sahu that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record that it is the trolley which caused the accident. Hence, the same not having been insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, the present Appellant ought not to have been fastened with the liability.

It is the further challenge of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that on the date of accident i.e. 12.2.2004 the offending tractor which is insured with the present Appellant had not caused the accident. But the accident was on account of the trolley. Since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of alleged accident that ought to have weighed with the learned Tribunal in securing right of recovery of the Appellant-

Insurance Company.

It is further submitted that in the absence of any documentary evidence, awarding of the compensation on account of treatment and loss of amenities of life is based on surmises and conjectures. As such, the same is liable to be interfered with.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Claimant, Sri Sahu submitted that there is no error in consideration of the evidence on record by the