AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. P. Routray, J
Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appears on behalf of the claimants on call.
Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
In the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2009 of the learned Ist MACT, Mayurbhanj in MACT Misc. Case No.174 of 2004, the original claimant, namely, Smt. Manita Barik has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.14.9.2004 on account of her injury sustained in the accident dated 22/23.7.2004.
The case of the claimant is that she sustained injury while going in the offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra Max Festiva bearing Registration No.OR-11-B-9729. The husband of the claimant was the owner of the said vehicle, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 in the claim application. It is claimed that the Petitioner sustained head injury, fracture injuries and other multiple injuries for which she underwent treatment in different hospitals and due to the effect to the said injuries, the lower part of her body down from the waist to leg was paralyzed. The claimant was represented through her husband, who was in fact the owner of the offending vehicle.
Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer submits that during pendency of the claim application, Opposite Party No.1, the owner, who was also the husband of the original claimant and representing her the claim application, died on 8.8.2006. It is further submitted that the original claimant was examined as P.W.1 before the learned Tribunal, but did not take any step for substitution of the owner-Opposite Party No.1. So the status of the claimant being the wife of the owner was not disputed and upon death of her husband, she stepped into the shoes of her husband to represent him as the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, no claim can be awarded in her favour. It is also submitted that the original claimant-Smt. Manita Barik also died during pendency of the present appeal and has been substituted by her sons.
In MACA No.483/2009, the LRs, who are the sons of the original claimant as well as the owner, have also been substituted upon death of Smt. Manita Barik.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the fact of death of Manoranjan Barik (owner of the vehicle) on 8.8.2006 is admitted. Further, the sons of Manoranjan Barik as well as Manita Barik were substituted on record for Manita Barik. But no substitution has been made in respect of Manoranjan Barik, who was admittedly the owner of the vehicle and husband of the original claimant. In other words, the owner of the offending vehicle became the claimant. As such 3rd party compensation cannot be awarded in favour of the claimant.
But the learned Tribunal has ignored all these aspects to grant 3rd party compensation. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Both the appeals are disposed of.
The statutory deposit made by the Appellant in MACA No.940 of 2009 before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company.
.........................