MACA/189/2026 of M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KHORDHA Vs MONALISA RATH on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026 Order No.

06.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimants. Depspite valid service of notice none appearance for the Respondent-owner. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

3. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, the Appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court challenging the judgment dated 26.09.2025 passed in MAC Case No.648 of 2018 by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-4th MACT, Cuttack, thereby the Respondent-claimants have been awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.48,59,056/- along with interest @ 7%. per annum from the date of filing of the claim application w.e.f. 08.08.2018 to till realization of the awarded amount. The learned Tribunal has also awarded 12% penal interest. The factual background pleading to the filing of the claim application, on a narrow compass, is that On 12.06.2018 at about 10 P.M. near Padhanpali Toll Plaza, while the deceased, namely, Pranav Kishore Debta was returning to his home from Rengali by his own Car bearing Regd. No.OD-15-3870, one truck bearing Regd. No.OR-23-B-1839 come running in front of the car and applied sudden brake without indication, as a result, the deceased lost his control over his vehicle and dashed against the offending truck and received grievous injury on his head and chest. Thereafter, he was taken to Vimsar, Burla for medical treatment. While undergoing medical treatment the deceased lost his life.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that the Appellant-Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the ground that the assessment of such compensation basing upon the income of the deceased is completely erroneous and not based on any sound legal principle. He further contended that the deceased, who was aged about 44 years, was managing his own transport business and in the process he was earning around Rs.33,000/- monthly income. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company further contended that such assessment of the monthly income of the deceased is completely erroneous. He further submitted that the award in respect of the interest is also on the higher side. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company further alleged that the accident is a result of the contributory negligence. However, the learned Tribunal, while assessing the contributory negligence, has deducted only 10% on account of negligence of the deceased. Such deduction of 10% towards contributory negligence is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company. Further, while explaining the contributory negligence which is attributed to the deceased, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the deceased who was driving the vehicle collided against the truck near a toll plaza. On the basis of such factual scenario, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was clearly evident from the material on record. However, the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality by deducting only 10% on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with in the present appeal.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company referred to Ground No.C of the appeal memo wherein it has been stated that the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-23-B-1839 did not have a valid goods permit on the date of the accident, i.e. on 12.06.2018. In the aforesaid context, a letter of the RTO, Jharsuguda dated 20.04.2022 was filed before the learned Tribunal and the same was exhibited. Such letter of the RTO, Jharsuguda reveals that the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-23-B- 1839 had no valid permit on the date of the accident. However, the learned Tribunal, ignoring the aforesaid fact, has saddled the entire liability on the Appellant-Insurance Company. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant contended before this Court that the Appellant-Insurance Company has a right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle and, accordingly, prayed for grant of right of recovery to the Appellant-

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimants, on the other hand, wholeheartedly supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal. While supporting the judgment of the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the Respondent-claimants submitted before this Court that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. He further submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken note of the income tax returns filed before the Tribunal in respect of the deceased. Therefore, no error can be found with the method of assessment of monthly income as has been done by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment. With regard to the contributory negligence, learned counsel for the Respondent-claimants contended before this Court that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submitted that any further deduction on account of contributory negligence would be unjust, unfair and improper and that the same would be contrary to the sound principles of law. On such ground, learned counsel for the Respondent-claimants contended before this Court that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal doesn’t call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the case as well as the materials on record and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2025 at Annexure-1, this Court found that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in arriving at the findings, except the deduction with regard to the contributory negligence. So far the contributory negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has conservatively deducted 10% on account of such contributory negligence, which is attributable to the deceased. Such deduction of 10% is not based on any sound principle of law. On a careful analysis of the factual scenario, as has been established in the present case, this Court found that taking into consideration the role of the deceased in the accident, such a deduction towards contributory negligence is on the lower side.

8. Taking into consideration the entirety of the factual scenario as well as the bone of contention between two sides, i.e. deduction on account of contributory negligence, this Court requested the learned counsels appearing for both sides to settle the matter amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimants offered that in the event the Appellant- Insurance Company pays a total consolidated compensation amount of Rs.55,00,000/-, the Respondent-claimants would be happy with such amount and that they shall not have any claim against the Appellant-Insurance Company so far the present accident is concerned. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, on the other hand, left it to the discretion of this Court and submitted that in the factual scenario of the present case, any amount, deemed just and proper by this Court, would be acceptable to the Appellant-

9. Taking into consideration such submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a careful examination of the factual scenario, this Court is of the view that in the event the Appellant-Insurance Company pays a consolidated compensation amount of Rs.55,00,000/- to the Respondent- claimants, the same would be just, fair and proper. Hence, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the Appellant-

Insurance Company shall now pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.55,00,000/-. Let the aforesaid consolidated amount be deposited before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks, if the same has not been already deposited. After the amount is deposited, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants, as decided by the Tribunal in its judgment. Subject to such deposit and production of a copy of acknowledgement of such deposit before the Tribunal, the Registry shall do well to release the statutory amount deposited before this Court along with interest in favour of Appellant-

9. Additionally, the award of interest as well as the penal interest stands waived. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant-Insurance Company has brought on record evidence with regard to the offending vehicle not having any valid permit, the Appellant-Insurance Company is granted a right of recovery in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal, while deciding such right of recovery of the Appellant-Insurance Company, shall provide an opportunity of the owner of the vehicle and pass necessary consequential orders.

10. With the aforesaid modification of the awarded amount and the additional direction, the appeal stands disposed of.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

Judge

S.K. Rout

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:44:02 Signature Not Verified