National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bidulata Dash & Ors.

G. Satapathy, J.

This is an Appeal by the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack (In short, “the insurer”) challenging the impugned judgment dated 29.12.2025 passed by learned 2^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (In short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.893 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs.8,37,650/- together with interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 27.12.2008 in favour of the claimants-respondents with further direction to the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The facts in this case being not disputed is not reiterated to avoid repetition. The appellant-insurer, however, challenges the impugned Judgment on the quantum of compensation.

Heard, Ms. Nibedita Mohanty, learned counsel appearing virtually for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Debasish Patnaik, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, but none appears for OP No.4 despite valid service of notice, since he refused to accept the notice. It is, however, brought to the notice of the Court that the Appeal can be disposed of at negotiated compensation amount, provided the claimants agree for it.

After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, it appears that the insurance company has not at all led any oral evidence, but it has exhibited the policy and the copy of the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle under Ext. A & B, however, these documents show that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant till 27.12.2007 covering the date of accident on 19.12.2007 and the driver of the vehicle was having a valid license authorizing him to drive commercial three wheelers and the offending vehicle is an Trolley Auto which means a three wheeler. Hence, the Appellant cannot escape its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. At this stage, after making a thorough discussion and negotiation with the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proposes an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum towards full and final settlement of the case and seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which Mr. Debasish Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Ms. Nibedita Mohanty, 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 Nos. 1 to 3 agrees to the proposal of the Court through their 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.5,50,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 27.12.2008 till its realization which shall be paid by the insurer to the claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of with modification of compensation amount to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 27.12.2008 till its realization and this Court, accordingly, directs the insurance company to pay the modified compensation amount within eight weeks hence. In case of deposit of the modified compensation amount before the tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 in terms of the award and 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.