G. Satapathy, J.

1. The impugned judgment dated 30.08.2025 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T.(SD), Berhampur, Ganjam (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No. 88 of 2024 (228/2023-GDC), is under challenge in this appeal U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, “the Act”).

1.1. By the impugned judgment, the appellant, who was OP No.2 in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal has been directed to pay Rs.1,29,07,059/- only to the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (R-1 to 3), who are the petitioners in the said proceeding together with Simple Interest (SI) @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application from 30.09.2023 till its actual realization.

2. Briefly stated, on 20.08.2023 at about 8.00PM, one Lakshmi Narayan Behera, an Assistant Commandant by profession (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) while coming to duty from his village Chhatrapur on his motorcycle bearing Regd. No. OR-07K-7148, met with an accident near Sangram Dhaba on NH-16 with one Truck (Ashok Leyland Ltd.) bearing Regd. No. AP-39UC-3249 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), which dashed him from behind by moving rashly and negligently resulting in death of the deceased. The accident was reported to the Police resulting in registration of Ganjam P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023 with ultimate consequence of submission of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants-cum- R-1 to 3 being the legal representatives of the deceased approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs.1.45 Crores on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner as OP No.1 and the Insurance Company as OP No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claim was registered vide MAC Case No.88 of 2024 (228/2023-GDC).

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim, the owner of the offending vehicle-cum-R-4(OP1), neither filed any written statement nor participated in the hearing of the claim proceeding despite due service of notice of the claim, however, the insurer of the offending vehicle being arrayed as OP2 (appellant herein) contested the claim by filing written statement denying all the allegations made against it and inter alia disowning its liability to pay compensation to the claimants for violation of conditions of the policy.

3. On the inter se pleadings between the parties, the learned Tribunal struck as many as five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the claimants examined three witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3 and proved 12 documents under Ext.1 to 12 in support of their claim as against no evidence whatsoever adduced by the insurer. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount as indicated supra.

4. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-insurer has preferred an application praying for acceptance of the letter dated 01.05.2024 of the employer containing information regarding payment made to the deceased as additional evidence in I.A. No. 355 of 2026 which was simultaneously taken up along with the present appeal.

5. Heard, Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 3, but none appeared for R-4 despite being duly noticed as notice was delivered to R-4 on 12.01.2026.

6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the insurer primarily challenges the quantum of compensation for not deducting the amount received by the claimants under various schemes; such as Rs.6,00,000/- towards GIS, Rs.30,000/- towards GIS refund, Rs.10,000/- towards GIS for obsequies, Rs.2,33,102/- towards ex-gratia death relief, Rs.48,000/- per month toward