Orissa High Court
MACA/439/2009 of N.I.CO.LTD Vs BIRABAR MUDULI on 2 September 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.439 of 2009 CNR No. ODHC010366462009 National Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.Amitav Das -versus- Birabar Muduli & Anr. ..... Respondents Represented By Adv. - Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak CORAM: THE HON’BLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.439 of 2009
CNR No. ODHC010366462009
National Insurance Company
Ltd.
.....
Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
M/s.Amitav Das
-versus-
Birabar Muduli & Anr.
.....
Respondents
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
02.09.2026 Order No.
18.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents-claimants. Perused the appeal memo as well as grounds taken therein.
3. By filing the present appeal, the Appellant- Insurance Company seeks to challenge the validity and illegality of the judgment dated 03.02.2009 passed by the learned 4th M.A.C.T., Puri in M.A.C. No.49/263 of 06/02. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total claim of Rs.16,050/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the Respondents- claimants. Being aggrieved by such award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that he has also filed an application bearing M.C.
No.908 of 2009 for submitting additional evidence with regard to the validity of the insurance policy. With regard to the aforesaid additional evidence, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the fact with regard to the insurance policy was not within the knowledge of the insurance company. Later on they found that the offending vehicle did not have a valid insurance policy. It was also contended that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, which has already been accepted by the learned Tribunal. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. As such, the impugned award is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Claimant, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has taken note of the contention of the Appellant- Insurance Company. Further, referring to the Issue No.3 it was stated before this Court that the learned Tribunal has considered the dispute with regard to the policy and that though the Appellant- Insurance Company was given an opportunity, the same has not been availed. He further submitted that at this belated stage the Appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court by filing the present appeal along with an application for additional evidence with a prayer to interfere with the impugned award. Such an attempt by the Appellant is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that the Appellant-Insurance Company has been given the right of recovery. Therefore, the impugned award is not liable to be interfered with after a gap of more than one and half decade.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned award, this Court found that the learned Tribunal, while answering Issue No.3, has held that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy issued by the Appellant-Insurance Company. There is also an observation that though the insurance company was given opportunity, they did not adduce the aforesaid evidence during trial. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the vehicle had a valid insurance policy. In the present appeal, the Appellant has filed an application for taking additional evidence with regard to the fact that the vehicle did not have a valid insurance policy. Since it was open to the Appellant- Insurance Company to raise such ground before the Tribunal by leading evidence and, due to their latches, eh Insurance Company did not advance anything on record while leading evidence with regard to the validity of such policy, the same cannot be permitted to be raised at the belated stage, especially since there were latches on the part of the insurance company. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has already granted the right of recovery to the Appellant-Insurance Company and more than one and half decade have elapsed since the award. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal
7. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Sep-2026 11:59:36 Signature Not Verified