O.I.CO.LTD vs NIMAI CHARAN MISHRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1216 of 2007

CNR No. ODHC010019512007

(An appeal Under Section 173(1) of MV Act, 1988).


Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sambalpur
… Appellant
-versus-

Nimai Charan Mishra and
others
Respondents
…



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


For Respondents : None

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:03.11.2026 (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-
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (In short, “the insurer”)
th
challenging the impugned judgment dated 27 November,
2006 passed by the learned Second Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur (In short, “the
Tribunal”) in Misc.(A) Case No.200 of 1996 (S) directing the
insurer to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- together with simple
interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim

MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 1 of 8

application on 29.11.1996 till actual realization to the
claimants-R1 to 3, out of whom R1 has expired in the
meantime and not substituted. By the impugned judgment,
the right of recovery was granted to the insurer to recover
the compensation amount by satisfying the same first to
the claimants.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts
involved in this case are that in an accident which took
place on 13.07.1996 at about 7.30 AM at Tulsipada on NH
No.6 on Bargarh-Sohella road, one Hemalata Mishra
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was allegedly
done to death by the Truck bearing Regd. No. WB-23-3942
(hereinafter referred to as, “the offending vehicle”) for rash
and negligent driving of the driver. Upon a claim being
preferred by the dependents of the deceased U/S.166 of
the Act, the learned Tribunal registered the same vide
Misc.(A) Case No.200 of 1996 (S) and proceeded in the
matter by issuing notice to the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle, but the owner of the offending vehicle
was set ex-parte as he did not participate in the claim,
whereas the insurer contested the claim by disowning its

MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 2 of 8

liability on the ground that the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid driving licence and the place of
accident was not being mentioned in the police papers.
3. The learned Tribunal, however, allowed the
parties to lead evidence and, accordingly, the claimants
examined the claimant no.1-Nimai Charan Mishra as PW1
and relied upon the police papers under Exts.1 to 6 as
against no evidence whatsoever by the appellant-insurer.
Accordingly, the learned Tribunal after analyzing 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
by reiterating its challenge as advanced in the claim. It is
not out of place to mention here that R1-cum-claimant died
during pendency of the appeal and the insurer has filed IA
No.2207 of 2024 to delete the name of R1 as all his legal
heirs are on record. Of course, such application/petition of
the appellant has not yet been disposed of. Since there
being no objection from any quarter, the said prayer of the
insurer stands allowed and, accordingly, the name of R1
MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 3 of 8

stands deleted. Hence, IA No.2207 of 2024 stands disposed
of.
4. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant, but none appears for R2 & 3 despite duly noticed
and notice against R4-cum-owner remains unserved, but
since R4-cum-owner was set ex-parte in the proceeding
before the learned Tribunal, the re-issuance of notice
against R4 stands dispensed with in view of the provision
under Order XLI Rule 14(4) of the CPC.
5. After having considered the submission as
advanced by Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant, there appears no dispute about the death of the
deceased in a motor vehicular accident, but the insurer’s
main challenge is for the driver not having valid driving
licence and the place of accident was not being mentioned
in the police papers. It is, however, found that the police
paper discloses the death of the deceased in a motor
vehicular accident and the submission of charge-sheet
against the driver for rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle itself is indicative of the death of the
deceased due to rash and negligent act of the driver, but

MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 4 of 8

merely because the place of accident has not been explicitly
stated in the police papers as advanced to be a ground to
disbelieve the case of the claimants, it cannot ipso facto
lead to any conclusion that the deceased had not died due
to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending
vehicle. Law is very clear on the point that once the
deceased is found to have died due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, no further
evidence is required to prove the rash and negligent act
and even the absence of oral evidence is also not fatal to
the case of the claimants. Accordingly, the aforesaid two
challenges of the appellant merits no consideration.
6. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr.
Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced
another argument that the same Tribunal has dismissed
another claim application by granting Nil award in Misc. (A)
Case No.208 of 1996 by holding that mere submission of
charge-sheet against the driver of the Truck cannot prove
the accident and cause thereof, but no evidence has been
tendered by the insurer in this regard. Be that as it may,
this Court is of the considered view that the submission of
MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 5 of 8

charge-sheet itself is sufficient to prove the rash and
negligent act of the driver offending vehicle, provided there
is no other clinching evidence to disprove that the driver
was not rash and negligent, more particularly when the
proceeding before the learned Tribunal is summary in
nature and strict procedure for proof of facts like in other
Civil cases is not required in a claim for compensation on
account of death and injuries arising out of vehicular
accident inasmuch as the provision for claim of
compensation on account of death of a person out of use of
motor vehicular accident is a beneficial provision of law and
it is to be interpreted in favour of the claimants to advance
social and welfare justice and to prevent the claimants from
destitution. Besides, the finding of the learned Tribunal by
no stretch of imagination is binding on the appellate forum,
rather the mistake committed by the learned Tribunal is
subject to rectification/correction in the appellate forum. In
the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the assertion of the
insurer that another claim qua other claimants being not
find the favour of the learned Tribunal is not a ground to

MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 6 of 8

reject the claim application of the claimants in another
case.
7. On the other hand, the learned Tribunal while
computing the compensation has rightly followed the law
and there is no real dispute against the computation of
compensation. Besides, the claimants have never
challenged the quantum of compensation by filing an
independent appeal and the present appeal being relate
back to the year 2007, this Court does not find any rhyme
and reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the
learned Tribunal while computing compensation. In
addition, the appellant-insurer has filed this appeal with a
delay of 298 days, which is of course condoned, but that
can also be a ground not to admit the appeal, especially
when no precise and accurate reasons have been advanced
for condonation of delay of such duration. Besides, such
limitation application of the insurer has been considered
with only a formal order, and the same was subject to
payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the learned counsel
appearing for the claimants then. In the aforesaid situation,
this Court does not find any merit in the challenge of the
MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 7 of 8

insurer to the impugned judgment. In addition, the right to
recovery as granted to the insurer having not been
challenged by anyone, the same remains confirmed.
8. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed and
the impugned judgment is, hereby, confirmed.
Consequently, the insurer is directed to pay the
compensation to the claimants in terms of the impugned
judgment within eight weeks hence. The statutory deposit
together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded
back on receipt of proof of deposit of compensation amount
before the learned Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge





Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
rd
Dated the 3 day of November, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Nov-2026 16:57:03

MACA No.1216 of 2007 Page 8 of 8