Legal Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd And Others vs Ajit Kumar Sahu & Another

G. Satapathy, J

These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the "Act"), assail the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned 6th Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Berhampur, Ganjam (in short, "the Tribunal") in MAC Case No.16 of 2015 and 56 of 2015.

The facts in precise are that there are two injured persons, namely Nilesh Kumar Panda and Ajit Kumar Sahu, who was represented by his father guardian Aruna Kumar Sahu in the proceeding before the learned tribunal and they have approached the learned tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) and Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) respectively for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicular accident involving one Canter bearing Regd. No.OR-07-D-0840 (in short "the offending vehicle") belonging to Respondent No.2/Respondent No.1 in these two appeals. According to the respective claimants, on 03.09.2014 at about 11.00AM near Nuapalli Chhaka, while they had stood on the extreme left side of the road, suddenly the offending vehicle coming from Purushottampur side in a rash and negligent manner dashed them from the back side resulting in serious injuries to them and they were shifted to different hospitals and got treated there. On this accident, the police was approached resulting in registration of police case which ultimately culminated in submission of charge-sheet. The two injured approached the tribunal in separate application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation by impleading the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

On being noticed, the owner of the offending vehicle preferred not to participate in the proceeding despite due service of notice and was accordingly set ex-parte, whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim by filing written statement denying allegation and inter-alia disowning its liability. The respective claimants adduced evidence and on conclusion of inquiry, the learned tribunal after appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the injured Nilesh Kumar Panda along with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f.13.01.2015 till its realization and to pay Rs.37,90,325/- to the claimant-injured Ajit Kumar Sahu together with same interest w.e.f 07.03.2015 till its actual realization, but being aggrieved with the award to the claimant-injured-Ajit Kumar Sahu only, the insurance company preferred the appeal mainly challenging the quantum of compensation. Similarly, the claimant Ajit Kumar Sahu being represented by his father has approached this Court in another appeal in MACA No.956 of 2023 to challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded to him by the impugned judgment. Accordingly, both these appeals are taken up simultaneously, although the MACA No.956 of 2023 has not yet been admitted.

Heard, Mr. Girija Prasad Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr. Biranchi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the respondent-cum-claimant, however, since the owner has not been made liable to pay the compensation to the claimant by the impugned judgment, notice against respondent-owner stands dispensed with on the request of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

No doubt the quantum of compensation as awarded to the claimant-Ajit Kumar Sahu is under challenge in these two appeals, but maintainability of the claim could not be validly disputed, however, law is well settled that once the charge-sheet is filed and the driver has been held negligent therein, no further evidence is required to prove that the offending vehicle was negligently driven by its driver and even if eye witnesses are not required to be examined once it is established that the offending vehicle caused the accident being driven rash and negligently. It is, therefore, very clear that the claim in the present case is quite maintainable. Undoubtedly, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.37,90,325/- to the claimant Ajit Kumar Sahu towards injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, but looking at the evidence on record and analyzing it on the face of rival submissions, this Court considers it proper to offer a proposal/suggestion to the parties seeking their response to, whether they are satisfied, if the claim is settled at Rs.35,00,349/- together with the interest as awarded by the tribunal. In response to such suggestion, Mr. Biranchi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No.956 of 2023 and Respondent-claimant in MACA No.1146 of 2023 readily accepted such suggestion by filing a memo, whereas Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent-insurer, however, left it to the discretion of the Court. It is, however, not disputed that another appeal in MACA No.1145 of 2025 arising out of the same judgment has already been disposed of by way of an order passed on 20.03.2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirming the award.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the rival submission, especially when Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for insurer did not oppose/refuse to accept the suggestion as put forth by the Court, it is found and considered in the interest of justice to reduce the compensation amount of the claimant Ajit Kumar Sahu being represented by his father by Rs.2,89,976/- and thereby, the modified compensation amount computed to the claimant Ajit Kumar Sahu at Rs.35,00,349/-which has been agreed by the claimant-respondent in MACA No. 1146 of 2023 and not opposed to by the appellant-insurer.

Accordingly, the appellant-insurer is hereby, directed to pay the modified compensation of Rs.35,00,349/- together with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant w.e.f.07.03.2015 till its actual realization to the claimant Ajit Kumar Sahu being represented by his father. Further, Mr. Birnachi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant in MACA No. 956 of 2023 by the same memo informs the Court that this appeal for enhancement of compensation has become infructous, since the claimant has already accepted the claim amount at Rs.35,00,349/-. Thus the appeal by the claimant in MACA No.956 of 2023 stands disposed of as infructous. Further, IA No. 666 of 2026 arising out of MACA No. 1146 of 2023 being for stay execution of the award has also become infructous and is accordingly disposed of as infructous.

In the result, these two appeals are accordingly disposed of with modification of the compensation amount as indicated (supra), but in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost. ERGO, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above and the insurer is directed to pay the modified compensation amount together with interest as indicated in the preceding paragraph to the claimant-Ajit Kumar Sahu within eight weeks hence. On deposit of the aforesaid modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant-Ajit Kumar Sahu proportionately in terms of the impugned judgment and the cheque filed towards the statutory deposit be returned back to the Insurer on the production of proof of deposit of modified compensation amount before the learned tribunal. The claimant-appellant shall pay the Court fee as per his claim in the appeal in MACA No.956 of 2023.