MACA/1051/2024 of SITA MURMU Vs DEBABRATA DHAL on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026 Order No.

05.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Claimants-Appellants as well as Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company. Despite valid service of notice on Respondent-1-Owner. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Perused the appeal memo as well the grounds taken therein.

3. By filing the present appeal, under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988, the Claimants-Appellants have approached this Court thereby challenging the impugned nil award dated 17.10.2023 passed in MAC Case No.172 of 2020 by the 3rd MACT, Balasore.

The aforesaid award has been challenged on the ground that the Claimants-Appellants were not given any opportunity to adduce evidence and that due to the negligence on the part of the conducting counsel in a case of death of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application without awarding any compensation in favour of the claimants.

4. So far as the factual background of the present case is concerned, it appears from the claim petition that on 17.08.2020 at about 06:50 A.M., while the tractor bearing registration No.OD11U4812 was proceeding towards Bhandarananda side on Baripada-Rajgovindpur SH-61, near Jhinkiria Traffic Post, it turned turtle towards the road side and the vehicle fell down to the Nayanjori side nala. At the time of accident, the deceased Bhunda Murmu had gone to attend the call of nature in the morning. The deceased came under the aforesaid vehicle and, as a result, the deceased as well as another Mangla Murmu of the very same village died on the spot of accident. The other persons who were travelling in the very same vehicle, referred the deceased to the Rasgobindpur CHIC and then to PRMMC hospital, Baripada, but to no avail. Accordingly, the Claimants of the deceased has approached the Claims Tribunal claiming a total compensation amount of Rs.12,00,000/-.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, he was set ex-parte. However, the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance-Company appeared and filed their written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues to decide the quantum of compensation that is to be awarded in favour of the Claimants. On perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned Tribunal has observed that the claim case is lingering from the side of the Petitioner and several adjournments have been taken on their behalf. On 26.09.2026 the Petitioner was found absent on the repeated calls and no steps were taken on their behalf. As such, the learned Tribunal has held the Petitioners Claimants to be guilty of negligence and not taking steps before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further observed that despite several opportunities being granted to the petitioners, they have failed to establish the alleged death of the deceased due to the road accident and to substantiate their claim regarding their entitlement to the compensation sought. As such, in the absence of any evidence being adduced from the side of the Petitioners, the claim petition has been dismissed without awarding any compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants at the outset contended that the nil award has been passed without providing any opportunity to the Claimants-Petitioners to adduce evidence on their behalf. He further submitted that there were some latches on the part of the conducting counsel of the Petitioners. He further submitted that for the latches of the conducting counsel, the claimants should not have been penalized by a Court of law. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1400 and stated before this Court that it is a trite case that for the latches on the part of the lawyer, the Parties should not suffer. Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted before this Court that enough opportunity was given to the Claimants to establish their case before the Tribunal. However, despite grant of several opportunities, the Claimants have failed to establish the factum of road accident as well as the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in disposing of the claim application by holding that the Claimants are not entitled to any compensation. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company while supporting the impugned order dated 17.10.2023, submitted before this Court that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective Parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 17.10.2023, this Court observes that the Claimant-Appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal against a nil award. On perusal of the background facts as well as the foundation basing upon which the order dated 17.10.2023 has been passed, this Court found that the Appellant-Claimants who were the Petitioners before the Tribunal have failed to adduce only evidence to establish the factum of road accident as well as the income of the deceased at the time of death due to the accident. It appears that the Tribunal has provided ample opportunity to the claimants to lead evidence from their side.

8. On a careful examination of the impugned order, it appears that despite several opportunities being granted to the counsel for the Appellant no evidence was adduced from the side of the Appellant-Claimants. Therefore, definitely the counsel for the Appellants as well as the Appellant-Claimants themselves are at fault. However, taking into consideration the principle of law administrated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that for the latches of the lawyer the Parties should not suffer, particularly in a case of this nature where the legal heirs of the deceased, have approached the Court of law claiming compensation, this Court cannot, in the larger interests of justice, deny the Claimants access to justice.

9. In view of such analysis of the factual background, this Court is inclined to allow the present appeal and remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for re-hearing, after providing opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. However, it is further made clear that since the Claimant-Appellants were found to be negligent, in the event any compensation is awarded, the Claimants shall be prohibited from claiming any interest for the period from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of disposal of the present appeal.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Sisir

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 03-Sep-2026 16:51:09 Signature Not Verified