M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, BBSR vs Ajay Kumar Pradhan & Anr.

G. Satapathy, J.

This is an appeal U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, BBSR (In short, “the insurer”) against the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri (In short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.276 of 2000 directing the appellant to pay to the claimant-cum-R1 for a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- with simple interest @ 6% w.e.f. date of filing of claim on 22.06.2000 till its actual realization.

The facts being not disputed is reiterated in precise only for disposal of this appeal and it is accordingly, found that in an accident which took place on 07.05.2000 at about 11AM, the claimant was allegedly hit by the Ambassador Car bearing Regd. No. OR-02E-2777 (hereinafter, referred to as “the offending vehicle”) at Alisha Chhaka in Puri resulting in injuries to him. An FIR being filed on this accident came to be registered in Satyabadi PS Case No. 76 of 2000 which ultimately resulted in submission of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for driving rash and negligent manner. Upon a claim being preferred by the injured-claimant, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the Appellant to pay compensation indicated supra to the claimant-injured.

Heard, Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Prabash Chandra Pattanaik, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No.1, but none appears for R-2 despite having entered appearance through a counsel.

After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the challenge of the impugned judgment on two grounds which have been stated in the preceding paragraph, but Sec. 64VB provides no risk to be assumed, unless premium is received in advance, however, here is a case, wherein the insurer has already issued insurance policy to the insured and thereby, it cannot take the benefit of Sec. 64VB, more particularly when no evidence at all, much less rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the insurer in the proceeding before the tribunal. Law of pleading suggests that a fact to be considered by a Court of law must be pleaded and established through admissible evidence in the standard of proof of preponderance of probabilities, but when there is no evidence at all, how come a fact can be considered to be true by a Court of law.

Besides, the learned tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment has vividly described the contention of the insurer and it is inter-alia observed therein that the seizure list under Ext. 8 discloses the seizure of insurance policy of the offending vehicle with policy no. 345304 and such policy was found to be valid w.e.f. 29.03.2000 up to 28.03.2001 covering the date of accident on 07.05.2001 and thereby, the plea as advanced for the insurer to take umbrage of Sec. 64VB is of no avail for the insurer.

Further, the insurer has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the claimant has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 3,42,000/-, however, such a ground appears to be not only harsh to the claimant, but also contrary to the duty of the tribunal, who is required to award just compensation inasmuch as compensation to the claimants arising out of Motor Vehicle accident is neither a bounty nor largesse, rather the same is an amount provided for the sustenance of the poor claimants and thereby, the plea as advanced by the insurer has no legal basis to be considered and the learned tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed.

After having considered the main challenges of the insurer in negative, this Court at this stage on negotiation and discussion with the learned counsel for the insurer and the claimants considers it in the interest of justice to propose a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with simple interest @ 6% w.e.f 22.06.2000 as a full and final settlement of the compensation in this case and seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which Mr. Prabash Chandra Pattanaik, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No.1 by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer leaves it to the discretion of this Court.

In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the law laid down by Apex court in Taslim Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), since the claimant-respondent No.1 agrees to the proposal of the Court through his counsel and the counsel for the appellant-insurer without disputing to such proposal leaves it to the discretion of the Court, it is considered that interest of justice would be best served, if the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 22.06.2000 till its realization and the aforesaid amount shall be paid by the insurer to the claimant-respondent No.1.

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed with modification of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 22.06.2000 till its realization. This Court accordingly directs the insurance company to pay the modified compensation amount within eight weeks hence and in case of deposit of the modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent No.1 in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The statutory deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back on receipt of proof of deposit of modified compensation amount before the learned Tribunal.