DINABANDHU BEHERA vs PRABINA KU.PRADHAN
- Court
- Odisha High Court
MACA/476/2009
ODHC010040342009
2026:OHC:255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.476 of 2009
CNR No. ODHC010040342009
(An appeal Under Section 173 of MV Act, 1988).
Dinabandhu Behera Appellant
…
-versus-
Prabina Kumar Pradhan Respondent
…
For Appellant : Ms. S.K. Behera, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. G.K.
Behera, Advocate
For Respondent : None
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:31.10.2026 (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
assailing the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2009 passed
by the learned Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bargarh (In short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.92 of
2007 directing the appellant to deposit a sum of
Rs.67,608/- before the learned Tribunal for its disbursal to
the Respondent-Claimant with further stipulation that if the
amount is not deposited, it would carry a simple interest @
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 1 of 9
9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of this application till
actual deposit.
2. The facts in background are that in an accident
which took place on 19.08.2007 around 12.30 PM, the
Motor Cycle of Srikanta Padhan in which the Claimant-
Respondent Prabin Kumar Pradhan was proceeding to
Sohella from his village Tabada as a pillion rider, was
allegedly hit by a Commander Jeep bearing Regd. No. OR-
17A-7172 (hereinafter referred to as, “the offending Jeep”)
resulting in injury to the Claimant-Respondent and he was
accordingly shifted to different Hospitals for his treatment.
An FIR being filed on this accident came to be registered
vide Sohella Police Station Case No.120 of 2007 with
commencement of investigation, which resulted in
submission of charge-sheet against the driver of the
offending Jeep for rash and negligent driving. Upon a claim
being filed by the Claimant-Respondent U/S.166 of the Act,
the learned Tribunal registered the same vide MAC Case
No.92 of 2007 and proceeded with the case by issuing
notice to the owner of the offending Jeep. In pursuance to
the notice of the claim, the owner of the offending Jeep-
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 2 of 9
cum-the appellant herein appeared and filed his written
statement denying his liability and inter-alia pleading that
his vehicle was stationary on the extreme left side of the
road, but the Motor Cycle of the Claimant-Respondent came
in a very high speed with rash and negligent manner and
dashed against his stationary Jeep and, therefore, the
accident occurring due to rash and negligent act of the
Claimant-Respondent, he is not liable to pay the
compensation to the Claimant-Respondent. It is,
accordingly, prayed by the appellant-cum-owner of the
offending Jeep to dismiss the claim.
3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the
learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and allowed the
parties to lead evidence and, accordingly, the claimant-
Respondent examined three witnesses under PWs.1 to 3
and proved the police papers & certain documents under
Exts.1 to 6 as against the oral evidence of two witnesses by
the appellant-cum-owner of the offending Jeep. On
conclusion of inquiry, the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the
parties, passed the impugned judgment directing the
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 3 of 9
appellant-cum-owner of the offending Jeep to deposit the
compensation amount indicated supra . Being aggrieved
with the impugned judgment, the owner of the offending
Jeep has preferred this appeal.
4. In the course of hearing, Ms. Samridha Krishna
Behera, learned Advocate appearing virtually on behalf of
Mr. Gopal Krishna Behera, learned Advocate for the
appellant submits that the Claimant-Respondent has failed
to establish his case, but the learned Tribunal has
erroneously directed the owner of the offending Jeep to
deposit the compensation amount, however, the evidence
on record never discloses that the Claimant-Respondent has
established that he sustained injuries in the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending Jeep and, thereby, the owner of the offending
Jeep being not liable to pay any compensation, the
impugned judgment is otherwise bad in the eye of law and
liable to be set-aside. On these submissions, Ms. Behera
prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment. None appears for the Respondent despite duly
noticed.
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 4 of 9
5. Having considered the submission advanced on
behalf of the appellant and upon perusal of record, it
appears that the Claimant-Respondent has not only alleged
that the offending Jeep has dashed against the Motorcycle
in which he was sitting as a pillion rider, but also the oral
evidence together with the documentary evidence under
Ext-1 has clearly established such fact. Ext-1 further
reveals that Sohella PS Case No.120 of 2007 was registered
for the accident caused by the offending Jeep and in such
accident, the Claimant-Respondent had sustained injuries,
which is further invigorated by the documentary evidence
adduced by the Claimant-Respondent under Exts.2 to 5,
which are discharge certificate of Gupta Nursing Home, VSS
Medical College Hospital, Burla, Prescriptions and Medical
Bills. On the other hand, the appellant-cum-owner of the
offending Jeep has failed to produce any valid rebuttal
evidence to establish that the offending Jeep was kept
stationary and the Motorcycle dashed against his stationary
vehicle, which is nothing but imagination of the appellant.
6. res ipsa
In a case like this, the doctrine of “
loquitur ” clearly gets attracted and the aforesaid doctrine
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 5 of 9
itself suggests that the thing speaks for itself. In other
words, in a case of tort and negligence, the evidentiary rule
allows a Court to infer negligence directly from the nature
of an accident, even the victim of accident does not produce
any direct proof of what wrong the tortfeasor did. In any
event, it obviously establishes the negligence of the
tortfeasor. It is also important that accident implies
negligence, but the type of injury or accident does not
normally happen unless someone is careless. It is for the
tortfeasor to establish that neither is he responsible nor
does he contribute to the injury of the victim in the
accident. Once the doctrine is invoked, it creates a strong
inference or rebuttable presumption of negligence against
tortfeasor and the burden shifts to the tortfeasor to explain
what happened and he is required to prove that he was not
negligent or responsible. On the other hand, the police
charge-sheet itself is an absolute assurance to the case of
Claimant-Respondent, and when the genuineness of the
documents is not challenged, much less is not controverted,
there is no escape from the irresistible conclusion that
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 6 of 9
accident took place solely due to rash and negligent act of
the driver of the offending Jeep.
7. Additionally, once charge-sheet is placed against
the driver for driving the offending Jeep in a rash and
negligent manner, no further evidence is required to
establish that the injured has suffered the consequence of
accident due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the
offending Jeep. In view of the aforesaid discussions and on
consideration of materials placed on record together with
the evidence on record and keeping in view the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
“ ”, this Court has no other option left, but
to concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending Jeep and the Respondent-
claimant had sustained injuries in such accident.
8. On coming to the next issue of quantum of
compensation, it appears that the Respondent-Claimant has
produced vouchers and bills to the extent of Rs.27,608/- to
which he is definitely entitled to. Besides, he is also entitled
to further amount under pain and suffering. Accordingly,
the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.27,608/-
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 7 of 9
towards treatment, Rs.5,000/- each towards conveyance,
medical attendant charges and special diet. In addition, the
learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and suffering of the injured-Respondent. This
Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity in the findings
of the learned Tribunal granting compensation of
Rs.67,608/- to the Respondent-Claimant, but the interest
component on this amount is bit on a higher side, since the
learned Tribunal has granted 9% simple interest on the
above amount, which according to this Court should be 4%
per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application
till realization.
9. In the result, the Appeal being unmerited
stands dismissed, but no order as to costs. Consequently,
the impugned judgment is, hereby, confirmed, but the
simple interest as imposed on compensation be reduced to
4% from 9%. Accordingly, the appellant is, hereby, directed
to pay the compensation together with simple interest @
4% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim
application till realization to the Claimant-Respondent within
eight weeks hence. Since the appellant has deposited
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 8 of 9
Rs.25,000/- towards statutory deposit in this appeal, the
statutory deposit together with accrued interest thereon be
paid to the Claimant-Respondent and the appellant is,
hereby, directed to pay the differential amount by
deducting the statutory amount together with the accrued
interest thereon from the original award calculated with
simple interest @ 4% per annum within eight weeks hence.
The Registry is, hereby, requested to send the statutory
deposit together with the accrued interest thereon to the
concerned Tribunal for its disbursal to the Claimant-
Respondent.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
st
Dated the 31 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: 02-Nov-2026 16:36:43
MACA No.476 of 2009 Page 9 of 9