MACA/126/2025 of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CUTTACK Vs SANTILATA BARIK on 20 August 2026

ORDER

20.08.2026 Order No.

07.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-claimants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.3. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

3. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Appellant-Insurance Company seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Cuttack thereby awarding a total compensation amount of Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the compensation amount, and penal interest @ 12%.

4. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 has been assailed by the Insurance Company on ground Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. He further contended that the impugned judgment has also been assailed on the ground of quantum of compensation that has been awarded. While assailing the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the same has been assessed at a higher side and not in consonance with the income of the deceased. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended before this Court that the impugned award is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2- claimants, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024. He further submitted that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased and on such basis it has determined the compensation amount. Therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful analysis of the rival contentions, further on a careful examination of the factual background as well as the materials available on record and on a close scrutiny of the impugned award, this Court is of the view that the matter can very well be resolved amicably in the spirit of the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the counsels appearing for both sides were requested to make an effort to resolve the dispute amicably.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2- claimants, at the outset, contended that the Claimant-Respondents would be satisfied in the event the Insurance Company pays a total compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim application till realization of the amount.

8. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the Insurance Company leaves it to the discretion of this Court and further submitted that whatever amount this Court would deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be acceptable to the Appellant-Insurance Company.

9. Considering the submission and keeping in view the factual background of the present case, as well as the income of the deceased, this Court is of the view that if the quantum of compensation is modified to Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the same would be just, fair, and proper. Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified to Rs.3,00,000/- in total along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. The penal interest @ 12% is hereby waived. Let the awarded amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of today’s order.

10. Further, taking into consideration the ground taken by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that the charge-sheeted driver had no Driving Licence at the time of the accident occurred, the liability should not have been impose on the Appellant-Insurance Company. He further submitted that the owner of the vehicle is squarely responsible and, accordingly, the right should have been fixed on him. Although it was submitted before this Court that the Appellant-Insurance Company has brought on record evidence regarding the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, however, the was disputed by the owner of the vehicle.

11. In view of the aforesaid position, the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for the limited purpose of determining the aforesaid question with regard to the fixation of liability, by keeping in view the stand taken by the Appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal shall determine the aforesaid limited question after providing an opportunity to both the Appellant- Insurance Company as well as the owner-Respondent. In the event it is held that the driver did not have any driving licence, then the learned Tribunal shall consequentially pass a direction granting right of recovery in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company as per law.

12. Accordingly, the Appeal stands partly allowed.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Aug-2026 18:33:59 Signature Not Verified