MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.568 of 2024 (An appeal Under Section-173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988). The Manager, Legal, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar … Appellant -versus- Rina Singh and others … Respondents For Appellant : Mr. S. Roy, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate (R-1 to 3) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 25.06.2026 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar (in short, “the insurer”) challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned 7th MACT, Bhubaneswar (in short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.70 of 2013 awarding compensation of Rs.15,10,800/- in favour of the claimants-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 including the deceased- respondent No.4 with further direction to the appellant to MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 2 pay the compensation amount to the above claimant- respondents. 2. The facts in this case being not disputed is not reiterated to avoid repetition. The appellant, however, challenges the impugned award mainly on three grounds such as:- (i) for not giving right of recovery to the insurer as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid DL; (ii) for taking income of the deceased arbitrarily at Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.4,500/- per month and lastly; (iii) for awarding high consortium amount of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/-. 3. Heard, Mr. Somnath Roy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Bishnu Brata Singh, learned counsel for R1 to 3, but none appears for R5 despite publication of notice in newspaper, which is held to be sufficient. R4 is already dead and her name is deleted vide order dated 27.03.2025. 4. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, coming to the challenge of the insurer for not extending recovery of right, primarily it MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 3 appears to this Court that the insurer has advanced such plea on the ground of driver of the vehicle causing accident for not holding valid DL, but not only the Tribunal has verified the DL of the driver under Ext.A while holding the driver for having valid DL covering the date of accident, but also it is found by this Court from the copy of DL of the driver as produced by the appellant-insurer that the date of issue of DL was 24.04.2009 and it was valid till 25.07.2027(Transport) and valid up to 13.06.2024(Non- Transport), however, the date of accident was 23.04.2013 and, therefore, at the time of accident, the driver was holding a valid DL. For arguendo, accepting, but not admitting the plea of the insurer that the driver was not having valid commercial DL, it appears that the insurer has neither adduced any oral evidence nor examined the author of Ext.A to establish such plea, however, the insurer also fails to establish to have taken any specific plea in its WS with regard to violation of policy condition by the insured for the driver to be not having any commercial DL as advanced in the appeal memo. Besides, mere exhibiting a document would not establish the facts MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 4 stated therein nor marking of a document as exhibit would prove the contents thereof. Additionally, Ext.A is a information obtained under RTI, but neither the person issued Ext.A was examined nor was the person who obtained it examined and, therefore, the plea of the insurer as advanced for extending right to recovery is negatived as the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. On coming back to the remaining challenges of the insurer, which are primarily relate to quantum of compensation, after making a thorough discussion and negotiation with the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proposes an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation for settlement and seeks response of the learned counsel for the parties, to which Mr. Bishu Brata Singh, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing a memo in Court today, which is taken on record, agrees and accepts for the same, but Mr. Somnath Roy, learned counsel for the appellant without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion of this Court. MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 5 6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the law laid down by Apex court in Taslim Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), since the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 agrees to the proposal of the Court through their counsel and the counsel for the appellant leaving such proposal to the discretion of the Court, it is considered that interest of justice would be best served, if the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.05.2013. 7. In the result, the appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to appellant-insurer to pay modified compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.05.2013 to the claimants- respondents Nos. 1 to 3 within eight weeks hence. In case of payment of the modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 proportionately in terms of the award by appropriating the MACA No.568 of 2024 p. 6 share of deceased R4-Asha Devi in favour of the rest of the claimants equally and the statutory deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back on receipt of deposit of modified compensation amount before the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th day of June, 2026/Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer