Orissa High Court
MACA/44/2006 of SARAT CH.BEHERA Vs BABURAM JENA on 28 August 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.44 of 2006 CNR No. ODHC010026772006 Sarat Chandra Behera ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s. Sarat Ku. Mohanty -versus- Baburam Jena and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s. P.K. Mahali, B. Mahali, S. Dash, A.K. Das CORAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.44 of 2006
CNR No. ODHC010026772006
Sarat Chandra Behera
.....
Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
M/s. Sarat Ku. Mohanty
-versus-
Baburam Jena and another
.....
Respondents
Represented by Adv. -
M/s. P.K. Mahali, B.
Mahali, S. Dash, A.K. Das
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
28.08.2026 Order No.
18.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar.
3. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant-Appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment dated 20.12.2005 passed in MAC
No.298/94 by the learned 1st MACT, Keonjhar, whereby a nill award has been passed.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, contended that although several materials were placed before the learned Tribunal with regard to the road accident as well as the injury sustained Appellant, however, the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that on wrong premises the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the claimant has not sustained any injury, and accordingly, no claim has been awarded in favour of the Appellant.
5. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2005.
6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Tribunal though has referred to the deposition of the witnesses from the Petitioner side, however, the list appended to the judgment reveals that no one is examined on behalf of the Petitioner. Moreover, the impugned judgment, also fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, this Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 20.12.2005 and remands the matter back to the learned 1st MACT, Keonjhar to re-hear the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to both sides and pass a reasoned judgment in accordance with law. Both the learned counsels for the Appellant as well as the Respondent are
directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 10.09.2026, where after the learned Tribunal shall refix the date.
7. Accordingly, 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: 31-Aug-2026 11:46:29 Signature Not Verified