MANAGER,(LEGAL) M/S. CHOLA MANDALAM, MS G.I.C., LTD.,BBSR vs JASHAMIN HEMBRAM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.494 of 2024

CNR No. ODHC010334352024

(An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988).

The Manager (Legal) M/S.
Chola Mandalam, MS. GIC
Ltd., BBSR
… Appellant
-versus-

Jashamin Hembram and
others
… Respondents


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

For Respondents : None

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:30.10.2026 (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. Chola Mandala (In short “the insurer”)
against the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2024 passed by
th
the learned 4 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jajpur Road
(In short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.06 of 2021
directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 19,01,125/- to the
claimants-cum-R1 to 4 herein together with simple interest
@ 6% per annum w.e.f. 02.03.2021 till its realization as

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 1 of 10

compensation in an application U/S. 166 of the Act towards
the death of their predecessor-in- interest in a Motor
Vehicular Accident.
2. The factual matrix in precise is that in an
accident which took place on 11.02.2020 near Talagar Chowk
in between Jajpur Road and Ragadi, one Kunu Hembram
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) while going along
with one Biju Tudu on a Bicycle was allegedly hit by the
Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-04-L-4543 (In short “the
offending Truck”) resulting in death of the deceased and
injuries to Biju Tudu. An FIR being filed on this accident
came to be registered as Korei PS Case No. 217 of 2020 with
commencement of the investigation thereof resulting in
submission of charge sheet against the driver of the
offending truck for rash and negligent driving. Upon a claim
being preferred by the dependents of the deceased on this
accident, the learned tribunal registered the same vide
M.A.C. Case No.06 of 2021 and proceeded in the case by
issuing notice to the owner and insurer of the offending
truck.

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 2 of 10

2.1. In response to such notice of the claim, the
owner of the offending truck did not appear and was set ex-
parte, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared
and filed its written statement denying its liability and calling
upon the claimants to prove their case. In addition, the
insurer took the plea manufacturing the case by planting the
offending truck, since FIR was registered after 204 days of
the accident.
2.2. On the inter-se pleadings by the parties, the
learned tribunal struck five issues and allowed the parties to
lead evidence. In support of their claim, the claimants
examined two witnesses vide PW1 & PW2 and exhibited
nineteen documents under Exts. 1 to 19 in support of their
claim as against the documentary evidence by the insurer
under Ext. A & B. On conclusion of inquiry, the learned
Tribunal after appreciating and analyzing the rival pleadings
together with evidence on record upon hearing the parties
dispose of the claim by impugned judgment granting
compensation to the claimants indicated supra. Being
aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has
preferred this appeal.
MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 3 of 10

3. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
appellant, but none appears for the Respondents not only on
today, but also on last date, despite they being duly noticed
and thereby, this Court without waiting the Respondents
considers it in the interest of justice to dispose of this appeal
by perusing the materials available on record.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and upon perusal of record, it appears that the insurer
mainly challenges the impugned judgment on two counts;
firstly, planting of vehicles and secondly, the quantum of
compensation. In adverting to the first challenge of the
appellant, it appears that the insurer mainly takes the refuge
of delay in lodging of FIR for 204 days to raise suspicion
about genuineness of the claim and to assert claim of
planting of vehicle by the claimants to get the compensation.
It is further contended by Mr. Dutta that although Covid-19
has been taken as a ground by the claimants for delay in
lodging of FIR, but merely because there is delay in lodging
of FIR, it would not ipso facto suggests that the same was
manufactured one, more particularly when there is an

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 4 of 10

explanation of delay contained in the FIR. Besides, in a case
of accident, it would not be unusual that the relatives of the
persons suffering accident must be busy with the treatment
of such person and that would be definitely a ground for
delay in lodging of FIR. It is also beyond the realm of
imagination of the Court that if the FIR is stated to be
manufactured one for being lodged after some delay, why
the Investigating Officer would support the informant to
place a charge sheet against an innocent person as the
offender and in a case like this, there must be some valid
reason or ground to disbelieve the incident of accident. In
this case, not only the claimants have exhibited the Police
papers of the accident case, but also such Police papers
unambiguously go to disclose that the deceased sustained
injuries in the accident caused by the offending vehicle and
the driver of the offending vehicle had been charge sheeted
for rash and negligent driving the offending truck. It would
not be proper to suspect the process of investigation in the
lens of the insurer, especially when the insurer has failed to
lead any ocular evidence to dispute the accident.
MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 5 of 10

5. Another ground was also advanced in the course
of argument to disbelieve the accident is for non-holding of
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. There appears
no dispute about the document under Ext. 10, which is the
Discharge Certificate of the deceased from the Hospital,
whereas Ext. 17 is the Bed head ticket and Ext. 18 is the
death certificate of the deceased. Ext. 17 reveals about the
treatment of the deceased till 12.03.2020, whereas Ext. 18
reveals his death to have taken place on the same date on
12.03.2020 and, therefore, it is hardly dis-believable that
the deceased did not die due to accident. Further, the other
documentary evidence sufficiently discloses that the
deceased had sustained head injury due to Road Traffic
Accident and the deceased was diagnosed with RTTP
contusion with ASDH with fracture of right tibia and fibula. It
is, therefore, very clear that the challenge of the insurer for
planting vehicle appears to be its imagination only. In
addition, once a party wishes any particular finding to be
recorded in his favour, he has to plead and prove the same,
but when the claimant has already established by sufficient
oral and documentary evidence to establish that the

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 6 of 10

deceased died due to Road Accident, the burden of proof in
turn is on the insurer to establish that the deceased did not
die in the accident and the vehicle was planted by leading
clear and cogent evidence but the insurer has failed to do so
and this Court, thereby, is not impressed upon to accept the
challenge of the insurer that the deceased did not suffer
death due to accident, rather this Court wholly concurs with
the finding of the learned trial Court that the deceased
sustained injuries in the accident involving the offending
Truck and he died due to the injuries sustained by him in
such accident.
6. Once it is found that the deceased had suffered
death in a motor vehicular accident, the claim is squarely
maintainable against the insurer and owner of the offending
vehicle, but the quantum of compensation, to which the
claimants are entitled is a definitely question to be
answered. In this case, the claimants had asserted that the
deceased was working as a Mason, but the insurer stoutly
denies the profession of the deceased in absence of any
clear and cogent evidence. Be that as it may, even in
absence of any concrete proof about the profession of the
MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 7 of 10

deceased, this Court considers it proper to rely upon the
minimum wages to assess the income of the deceased as
unskilled labourer. The learned trial Court has of course
taken the minimum wages for the deceased as a skilled
labour, but in absence of any reliable evidence of avocation
of the deceased, this Court, however, takes the minimum
wages for an unskilled labour. Taking the minimum wages
for unskilled labour at the relevant time of accident at Rs.
298/- which is rounded up to 300/- per day, the monthly
income of the deceased would come around 7,800/- by
taking 26 working days and, therefore, the annual income of
the deceased would come to Rs. 93,600/-, but it is found
from Ext. 19, the Aadhaar Card of the deceased that his date
of birth is 10.06.1980 and he died in the accident on
12.03.2020 and thereby, the deceased would be around 39
years 9 months 2 days as on the date of his death and,
therefore, an addition of 40% to the income of the deceased
is mandated in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi
and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , but the learned tribunal
has erroneously added 25% to the income of the deceased

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 8 of 10

towards future prospects. Hence, the annual income of the
deceased together with future prospect would come to Rs.
1,31,040/-. Since the deceased was having four dependents,
th
1/4 is required to be deducted towards his personal and
th
living expenses and, therefore, after deducting the 1/4
from the income of the deceased, the net contribution of the
deceased to his family would come around Rs. 98,280/-.
Since the deceased was aged about less than 40 years, the
appropriate multiplier would be 15. Hence, the net loss of
dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 98,280/- X 15 =
14,74,200/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 84,000/-
(Rs. 70,000+2 X 10 % of Rs. 70,000) towards general
damages, since the deceased died on 12.03.2020 and in the
meantime, six years has elapsed. The net compensation, to
which the claimants are entitled to Rs. 14,74,200/- + Rs.
84,000/-= Rs. 15,58,200/- rounded up to Rs. 15,60,000/-.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to 6% interest w.e.f
the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 02.03.2021
till actual realization.
7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part,
but in the circumstance, no order as to costs. Consequently,
MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 9 of 10

the impugned judgment of the learned tribunal is modified to
the extent indicated above and the insurer-appellant herein
is hereby directed to pay the modified compensation amount
indicated in the preceding paragraph to the claimant-
Respondents 1 to 4 within eight weeks hence. The statutory
deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be
refunded back upon receipt of proof of deposit of modified
compensation by the insurer before the learned Tribunal.


(G. Satapathy)
Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 30 day of October, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 31-Oct-2026 15:49:21

MACA No.494 of 2024 Page 10 of 10