THE MANAGER LEGAL , M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,KHURDA vs KANHU CHARAN MOHAPATRA

Court
Odisha High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.75 of 2026

CNR No. ODHC010038602026

(An appeal U/S.173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

The Manager Legal, M/S.
Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., Khurda
… Appellant
-versus-

Kanhu Charan Mohapatra and
others
… Respondents



For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate(R-1 to 3)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY


DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.10.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal U/S. 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the Appellant-The
Manager Legal M/S. Reliance General Insurance Company
Ltd., Khurda (In short “the Insurer”) against the impugned
rd
judgment dated 27.10.2025 passed by learned 3 Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagatsinghpur (In short “the
Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.42 of 2015 directing the insurer
to pay a sum of Rs. 38,05,100/- only to the claimants-R1 to
R3 herein together with simple interest @ 6% per annum

MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

w.e.f 08.04.2015 till its realization excluding the interest for
the period from 12.07.2014 to 03.04.2018 during which the
claim application remains dismissed for default.
2. The facts in this case, being largely undisputed,
is only reiterated in precise for disposal of the present
appeal which emanates from an accident which took place
on 26.03.2015 at about 2:30PM at Yamnampet Fly Over
Bridge in Andhra Pradesh, when one Shashikantha
Mohapatra (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) while
going by riding his motor cycle bearing Regd. No. TS-08-
EC-7318 was allegedly hit by one trailer/trolley bearing
Regd. No. AP-26-U-2787 (hereinafter referred to as “the
offending vehicle”) resulting in death of the deceased. An
FIR being filed on this accident with the Ghatkesar Police
Station came to be registered vide FIR No. 139 of 2015
resulting in submission of charge sheet against the driver
for offence U/S. 304-A of IPC. Upon a claim being filed on
this accident by the dependents of the deceased, the
learned tribunal registered such claim vide MAC No. 42 of
2015 and proceeded with it by issuing notice to the owner
and insurer of the offending vehicle, out of whom the owner

MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

preferred not to contest the claim, whereas the insurer
contested the claim by filing written statement denying its
liability, but the learned tribunal after appreciating the
evidence upon hearing the parties passed the impugned
judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation
indicated supra to the claimants. Being aggrieved with the
impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for R1 to R3-cum-claimants, but notice issued against R4
returned with postal endorsement “No such person in this
address”, however, re-issuance of notice against R4 stands
dispensed with in view of the provision of Order XLI Rule
14(4) of the CPC, since R4-cum-owner of the offending
vehicle remains ex-parte before the tribunal.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and upon perusal of record, it appears that the insurer
challenges the impugned judgment mainly on two grounds;
such as, non-submission of charge sheet against the driver
for offence U/S. 279 of IPC for rash driving the offending
vehicle and grant of exorbitant compensation to the
MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

claimants. Addressing to the first plea as advanced by the
insurer, it is no longer res integra that merely because the
Police has not submitted charge sheet against the driver for
offence U/S. 279 of IPC, it would not ipso facto absolve the
liability of the insurer since Sec. 304-A of IPC itself speaks
about causing death of any person by rash and negligent
act which in the circumstance of admitted evidence
available on record clearly reveals that the deceased while
going on his motor cycle was allegedly hit by the offending
vehicle and died. Once there is oral evidence coupled with
documentary evidence of submission of charge sheet
against the driver for causing death of the deceased by
rash and negligent driving, no further evidence is required
to prove the death of the deceased by rash and negligent
act of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this regard,
this Court is fortified with the decision in the case of
Ranjeet Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Another; 2025 SCC
Online SC 497 , wherein the Apex Court has held that once
charge sheet is submitted against the driver for rash and
negligent driving, no further evidence is required to
establish the rash and negligent act of the driver of the

MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

offending vehicle and even there is no oral evidence, it
would not be fatal to the case of the claimants. In view of
the aforesaid facts and situation, the challenge to the
impugned judgment by the insurer on the ground of non-
submission of a charge sheet against the driver for offence
U/S. 279 of IPC pales into insignificance inasmuch as not
only the learned tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that
the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but
also the same finding has been concurred by this Court.
5. Turning into the next challenge of the insurer
that the tribunal has granted exorbitant compensation to
the claimants, it appears that the insurer in fact has
pressed the evidence of PW1 to suggest that the said
witness-cum- one of the claimants admitted in cross-
examination for her inability to produce any document
about the appointment of her son, but merely because the
witness could not able to produce any document to show
the appointment of the deceased, it cannot be conclusively
said that the deceased had not been appointed by his
employer. On the other hand, the learned tribunal has
MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

come to observe by perusing the documents submitted by
the claimants that the deceased had completed his MBA
from Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in
Management, University of Sikkim. Besides, the tribunal
has relied upon the appointment letter of the deceased to
come to hold the income of the deceased at Rs. 19,167/-
and accordingly, rounded off the income of the deceased to
Rs. 20,000/-. It is, however, not disputed that the learned
tribunal while calculating the compensation has committed
error by quantifying the future prospect by taking into
account the gross income of the deceased without
deducting any amount towards his personal and living
expenses and thereby, the challenge to the quantum of the
compensation by the insurer has some force. At this stage,
after upon a comprehensive and consensus-seeking
exercise with the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
this Court proposes an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of
claim application on 08.04.2015 till its realization, and
seeks the response of the learned counsel for the parties,
to which Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R1

MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

to R3 by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal of
the Court, but Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant-insurer leaves it to the discretion of this Court.
6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking
guidance from the law laid down by Apex Court in Taslim
Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another;
2018(2) TAC 22 (SC) , since the claimant-Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 agree to the proposal of the Court through their
counsel and the counsel for the appellant-insurer without
disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion of the
Court, it is considered that the interest of justice would be
best served, if the compensation amount is reduced to
Rs.28,00,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum
w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e.
08.04.2015 till its realization which shall be paid by the
insurer to the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed
with modification of compensation to Rs.28,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs) together with simple interest
@ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim
application i.e. 08.04.2015 till its realization. Consequently,
MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

this Court directs the insurance company to pay the
aforesaid modified compensation amount to the claimants
within eight weeks hence and in case of payment of the
modified compensation amount, the same shall be
disbursed to the claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3
proportionately in terms of the award. The statutory deposit
together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded
upon receipt of proof of deposit of modified compensation
before the learned Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge





Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 29 day of October, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 30-Oct-2026 18:39:10

MACA No.75 of 2026 Page 8 of 8