IN THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL.

DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-9TH M.A.C.T., BHUBANESWAR

Present:
Smt. Sasmita Parhi, B.Sc. LL.M.,
Addl. District Judge-cum-
9th M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar.
J.O.Code-OD00240

Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024

M.A.C. No.193 of 2018

1. Arati Sahu, aged about 45 years,

W/o. Ananda Kumar Sahu.
2. Ananda Kumar Sahu, aged about 49 years,
S/o. Late Phakir Sahoo.
3. Sasmita Sahu, aged about 7 years,
D/o. Ananda Kumar Sahu.
(Applicant No.3 being minor represented through
her mother guardian and next friend Arati Sahu,
applicant No.1)
All are of At/PO-Basupali, P.S.Kadarbaga, Dist-
Sambalpur-768212.
…….Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. Manoj Kumar Patel,
S/o. Late Minaketan Patel,
L/1 TRL Colony, Belpahar,
Dist-Jharsuguda-768218

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented through its
Branch-in-charge, Unit No.3B,
5th Floor, BMC Bhawani Commercial Complex,
At/PO/PS-Saheed Nagar,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khordha.
…….. Opp.Parties

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 1 of 14

 Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri M. Mohanty
and Associate Advs.
Counsel for O.P. No.1 : Shri C.K.Pattanaik
and Associate Advs.
Counsel for O.P.No.2 : Shri B.R. Mishra
and Associate Advs.

Date of Argument: 27.03.2024

Date of Judgment: 05.04.2024

JUDGMENT

This is an application preferred U/s-166 MV Act,

1988 claiming compensation by the petitioners for the
loss sustained by them due to the motor accident in
which they lost the deceased, Abhishek Sahoo @ Tapu
Sahu.

2. The case of the petitioners is that on 08.07.2018

at about 2.00 P.M., the deceased Abhishek Sahoo @
Tapu Sahu and his friend were going in a motorcycle in
the left side of the road at Puruna Basti Bypass road on
S.H.10. In the meantime, a car bearing Regd. No.OD-
23-A-9032 was coming in a very high speed in rash and
negligent manner and due to the high speed the driver
could not control the vehicle and dashed against the
motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased
and his friend received multiple injuries on their
person. After the accident the deceased was shifted to
Burla Hospital, Samablpur for treatment but he got died
in the said hospital during the treatment. The post-
mortem examination of the deceased was conducted at

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 2 of 14

 Burla Govt. Hospital. The claimants being the parents
and sister are the dependants. The deceased was quite
hale, hearty and healthy boy of 14 years of age by the
time of accident. Prior to the accident the deceased was
a student of Class-X and after compilation of his study
he was earning of Rs.15,000/- above per month. After
accident the financial condition has been ruined and the
applicants have lost love and affection of the deceased.
That apart all the claimants have been subject to severe
pain and sufferings due to untimely death of deceased.
All the applicants have lost the moral, spiritual
guidance of the deceased. The deceased had lost his
future happy and prospectus of life. The offending
vehicle was having valid insurance policy covering the
date of accident. The FIR was registered. After due
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the
accused U/s.279/337/338/304(A) of IPC. The driver
was having valid driving licence. The petitioners filed
this case seeking compensation of Rs 15,00,000/- from
the owner and insurance company of the car.

3. In this case, the O.P. No 1 contested the case and

filed the written statement stating inter alia that the
claim petition is not maintainable and the claim is
barred by law of limitation. The claim petition is bad
for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
The alleged accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the rider of the Glamour

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 3 of 14

 motorcycle bearing No.OD-15-E-8868 Ajaya Pradhan
who has not been made party to the present proceeding.
The vehicle in question of the respondent was duly
insured with the Opp.Party No.2, Tata AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No.015600051002
which was valid from 27.05.2018 to 26.05.2019
covering the date of accident inasmuch as the risk of
the applicants as a third party and the accused driver
who is the owner of the vehicle has also a valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident to drive
the alleged offending vehicle. The vehicle has also all
other valid and effective documents like fitness, permit,
etc. at the time of accident. If the applicants are entitled
to any compensation whatsoever, the same is to be
indemnified by Opp.Party No.2. He further submitted
that he has valid insurance policy and the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.

4. The Opp.party No.2, the Tata AIG General

Insurance Co. Ltd. entered his appearance and filed the
written statement wherein Opp.Party No.2 does not
admit the commission of the accident. The claim
petition is also not maintainable either on facts or law.
The Opp.Party No.2 submits that the policy number as
disclosed in the claim application is not the complete
policy number. The said vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-
23-9032 is not at all involved in the accident and this
case has been filed by the applicants in collusion with

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 4 of 14

 police and the insured Opp.party No.1. The driver of
the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident and
further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such
driving license and further has not satisfied the
requirements of the Rule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Opp.Party No.1 has handed
over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver and
therefore, has contravened the proviso of the M.V. Act
and Rules framed thereunder and have committed the
breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. This
Opp.Party seeks protection under Section 147 and 149
of M.V. Act. As per Section 134(C) of M.V. Act, 1988 it
is the mandatory duty of the insured/Opp.party No.1 to
furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of
accident, particulars of death and name of the driver
and particulars of the driving license but the insured has
not complied with the statutory demand. As per
Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, it is the mandatory duty of
the concerned police station to forward all relevant
documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days
from the date of information but Rengali Police station
failed to forward the documents and not complied with
the statutory demands. It is further submitted that due to
carelessness and negligence acts of the deceased the
accident took place. As the accident took place due to
the own fault of deceased, the claimants are not entitled
to get any compensation. Further, the Opp.party No.2,

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 5 of 14

 company submits in its written statement that the claim
of the petitioners is arbitrary, imaginary and highly
excessive.

5. From the rival pleadings of the parties following

issues are emerged for determination:

ISSUES

(i) Whether the case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether on 08.07.2018 at about 2.00 P.M. due to

rash and negligence driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle bearing registration No.OD-23-
A-9032, the accident occurs near Puruna Basti
Bypass road, on S.H.10 and in that accident the
injured sustained injuries and ultimately
succumbed to such injuries on his person ?

(iii) Whether the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners ?

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any

compensation from the O.Ps and if so, what
should be the quantum of such compensation ?

(v) To what relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled

to ?

6. In order to substantiate their claim the petitioners

have examined two witnesses including petitioner no. 2
as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the eye witness to the alleged
accident and relied on police papers, P.M. report etc.

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 6 of 14

 On the other hand, the O.P. No.2 has examined
only one witness. OPW.1 is the Associate Legal Claims
with M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
He has also relied on some documents i.e. Ext.A and
Ext.B on his behalf.

FINDINGS

7. Issue no. II and III :-

As both the issues are interlinked and inter

dependant to each other, they are taken up together for
discussion.

P.W.1 has reiterated in his affidavit evidence as

well as in the averments of the claim petition relating to
the cause and happening of the alleged incident and the
death of his son resulting from the injuries sustained in
the said accident but it transpires from his evidence that
he was not present at the time of incident.

P.W.2 is the eye witness to the alleged incident. It

is noticed from the statement of P.W.2 that on the
relevant date and time he was present near the accident
spot. The accident took place near Puruna Basti Bypass
road on S.H.10 on 08.07.2018 at about 2.00 P.M. At
that time the deceased and his friend were going in a
motorcycle in the left side of the road. In the meantime
one car bearing Regd. No.OD-23-A-9032 came at a
very high speed from front side. Due to high speed, the
driver of the offending car could not control the vehicle

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 7 of 14

 and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As
a result the deceased was thrown to a distance and
sustained multiple injuries on his person. After the
accident the deceased was shifted to Burla Govt.
Hospital for treatment. The accident took place due to
sole negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
In his cross examination he has stated that the accident
took place face to face. From the above evidence of the
eye-witness, P.W.2 it can be said that the alleged
accident took place when the deceased was going on
the road by one motorcycle in the left side of the road
and the alleged car dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased and the vehicle was driven by the driver in a
rash and negligent manner.

On a careful reading of the certified copy of the

police papers marked as Ext.1, Ext.2, Ext.3, Ext.4,
certified copy of the P.M. report vide Ext.5, this
tribunal finds that these police papers lend
corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The
certified copy of the Final Form marked as Ext.2
clearly reveals that the driver of the car was driving the
offending vehicle at the material time and due to his
rash and negligent driving, the accident was taken
place. Therefore the investigating officer submitted
charge sheet against him U/s. 279/337/338/304(A)
I.P.C.

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 8 of 14

 8. O.P.W.1 has reiterated in his affidavit evidence as
well as in the averments of the written statement
relating to the cause and happening of the alleged
incident and the death of the deceased. OPW.1 in his
cross examination has stated that he has no direct
knowledge about the alleged accident.

Thus taking into account the oral evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documentary evidence vide
Exts.1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, I have no hesitation to hold that on
the relevant date and time the offending vehicle i.e. car
bearing Regd. No. OD-23-A-9032 caused accident to
the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of its
driver, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and later he
succumbed to the injury in the hospital. Hence, issue
no. II and III are answered in favour of the petitioners.

9. Issue No. IV & V:

As far as issue no. IV and V are concerned it is to
be decided whether the petitioners are entitled to
receive compensation on account of accidental death of
the deceased. It is not disputed that petitioner no. 1 is
the mother, petitioner no.2 is the father and petitioner
No.3 is the sister of the deceased.
Next point comes for determination is what
should be quantum of compensation to be awarded in
favour of the petitioners. It is the settled position of law
that in motor accident claim cases the Tribunal should

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 9 of 14

 award just, proper, reasonable and adequate
compensation in favour of the claimants.

10. It is observed by our Hon’ble Apex Court in

Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand
Mahto and others passed in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.5345 of 2019, decided on 13.10.2022 in para
13 that ,

13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking

to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the
principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and
another vs. Lala and others (2014) 1 SCC 244 are aptly
applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the
ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear
that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a
private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning
Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the
multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in
Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs.
4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional
heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to
Rs.5,00,000/-.

In view of the above decision, since the deceased

is of aged about 14 years, died in a road accident took
place on 08.07.2018, so the notional income can be
taken as Rs. 30,000/- and the multiplier as 15, the loss
of dependency would be calculated as Rs. 4,50,000/- in
which Rs. 50,000/- be added towards conventional
heads, thus the total compensation amount would come
to Rs. 5,00,000/-. So the claimant is entitled to get
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) towards compensa-
tion.

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 10 of 14

 Beside the above, the petitioners are also entitled
for an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
application i.e. 25.10.2018.

Let us examine as to whether the Opposite Party

No.1, owner of the offending car bearing Registration
No.OD-23-A-9032, or the Opposite Party No.2, the
insurance company, is entitled to reimburse the
petitioners for the loss. It is admitted that the offending
vehicle was under insurance coverage from Opp.Party
No.2. Learned advocate on behalf of claimants urged
before me that the I.O during investigation seized the
D.L of the offending driver vide No.OR-
1519980078945 in the name of the driver Manoj
Kumar Patel. The petitioners have submitted the Xerox
copy of the insurance policy.

Hence there is no dispute that the insurance

company is entitled to reimburse the compensation
amount payable to the claimants. The said submission
has got sufficient force. Considering the submissions
made and the materials on record, this Tribunal is
inclined to hold that the insurance company Opp.Party
No.2 is entitled to reimburse the above compensation
payable to the claimants.

11. Issue No.1:

On going through the claim petition it is noticed

that the same is filed in time and is maintainable.

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 11 of 14

 Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim petition is allowed on contest against

Opp.Parties. The Opp. Party No.2, the Tata AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. represented through its
Branch-in-Charge is hereby directed to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) only for death of
Abhishek Sahoo @ Tapu Sahu to the
claimants/petitioners along with the interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of filing the application
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
the order failing which the amount to be carried a
further interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only be paid in cash to
the petitioner No.1 (mother) and an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only be kept in shape
of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name
of the petitioner No.1 for a period of six years and
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only be paid in cash
to the petitioner No.2 (father) and an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only be kept in shape
of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name
of the petitioner No.2 for a period of six years and a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only be kept in
shape of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the
name of the petitioner No.3 (sister) for a period of six

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 12 of 14

 years. The petitioner No.1 and 2, parents of the
deceased on behalf of the above minor petitioner No.3
are at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the
fixed deposit and the petitioner No.3 on attaining
majority would be at liberty to withdraw the quarterly
interest. All the fixed deposits shall not be utilized for
any collateral purposes. The petitioners shall not
withdraw the fixed deposit amount without permission
of the Tribunal.

The required court fees if not paid earlier shall be

realized from the claimants before payment of
compensation amount is made to them.
Parties to bear their respective costs.

Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T.,Bhubaneswar

The judgment is typed out to my dictation by the

Stenographer attached to this Court directly on the
computer, corrected by me and pronounced in open
court, on this the 5th day of April, 2024 under my
signature and seal of this Court.
Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T.,Bhubaneswar

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the

Petitioners:
P.W.1 : Ananda Kumar Sahu
P.W.2 : Bhimasen Mallick

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the

Opp.Parties:

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 13 of 14

 OPW.1 : Jyoti Prakash Nanda

List of Exhibits marked on behalf of the Petitioners:

Ext.1 : FIR
Ext.2 : Final Form
Ext.3 : Seizure list
Ext.4 : Seizure list
Ext.5 : P.M. Examination report
Ext.6 : Letter No.2220 of IIC, Rengali P.S.
dated 14.08.2022
Ext.7 : Letter No.2221 of IIC, Rengali P.S.
dated 14.08.2022

List of documents marked on behalf of Opp.Parties:

Ext.A : Authorisation letter issued by Manager,

Legal Claims, Tata AIG Company Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar.

Ext.B : Office copy of the letter dated 06.04.2019

issued to the owner of the offending
vehicle Manoj Kumar Patel.

Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar

MAC No.193 of 2018 Page 14 of 14