O.I.CO.LTD vs DULABATI BHUE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.941 of 2009
CNR No. ODHC010003832009

(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

Branch Manager, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Bolangir
Appellant
…
-versus-

Dulabati Bhue and others … Respondents



For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate

For Respondents : None

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY


DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:28.10.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an Appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) against the
impugned judgment dated 04.06.2009 passed by the
learned Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bargarh
in MAC Case No.02 of 2008 granting compensation of
Rs.2,78,300/- to R1 to 5 herein with further direction
to the appellant to pay the compensation and realize it
from the owner of the offending vehicle-cum-R6.
MACA No.941 of 2009 Page 1 of 4

2. It appears from the record that the notice
against R1 to 5 has been dispatched, but notice
against R6 is held to be sufficient. Be that as it may,
the claimants-R1 to 5 had also filed another claim
application for compensation for the self-same
accident in Misc. Case No.442 of 2006 before the
nd
learned 2 MACT, Cuttack, which is evident from the
certified copy of the order sheet as produced by the
appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the claimants-R1
to 5 have approached two different forums having
concurrent jurisdiction at two different places for the
self-same relief on the same accident, but they have
not adduced any evidence in the claim filed by them in
the present case, which was filed before the learned
MACT, Bargarh in MAC Case No.02 of 2008, however,
the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned
judgment basing on the averments and documents
filed therein and, accordingly, granted compensation
of Rs.2,78,300/-.
2.1. It is worthwhile to mention that the
judgment in the present case was delivered on
MACA No.941 of 2009 Page 2 of 4

04.06.2009, whereas the claimants’ claim application
in Misc. Case No.442 of 2006 was disposed of by the
nd
learned 2 MACT, Cuttack on 03.11.2008 basing on a
compromise arrived at by the parties in the Lok Adalat
held on 20.09.2008 and, accordingly, the
compensation to the claimants was quantified at
Rs.2,12,000/-, which was directed to be paid by the
present Insurance Company impleaded as OPNo.2 in
Misc. Case No.442 of 2006. Further, the order sheet
also reveals that the aforesaid claim amount was
deposited by the insurer and the same was disbursed
nd
to the claimants by the 2 MACT, Cuttack vide its
order dated 27.01.2009 in terms of the award passed
by it. The disposal of the claim application of the
nd
claimants earlier by the 2 MACT, Cuttack in Misc.
Case No.442 of 2006 shall operate as res judicata to
the disposal of claim application filed by the claimants
in MAC Case No.02 of 2008 later in time and the 3rd
MACT, Bargarh could not have passed the impugned
judgment after disposal of the claim application of the
claimants in Misc. Case No.442 of 2006.
MACA No.941 of 2009 Page 3 of 4

3. In the aforesaid facts and situation and
nd
on consideration of the disposal of the case by the 2
MACT, Cuttack, the impugned judgment passed by the
3rd MACT, Bargarh in MAC Case No.02 of 2008 needs
to be set-aside with dismissal of the claim.
4. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed,
but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, no order
as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment
dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned 3rd MACT,
Bargarh in MAC Case No.02 of 2008 is, hereby, set-
aside. The statutory deposit together with the accrued
interest thereon be refunded back.



(G. Satapathy)
Judge







Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 28 day of October, 2026/Subhasmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 29-Oct-2026 14:08:03
MACA No.941 of 2009 Page 4 of 4