MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.1340 of 2025 (An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988). The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar … Appellant -versus- Sanjay Kumar Pradhan & Another … Respondents For Appellant : Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate (R-1) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 24.04.2026 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. The appellant, who is the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Bhubaneswar has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed in M.A.C. Case No.102/646 of 2024/2002, by which the learned 5th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- (Rupees One Lakh One Thousand) together with the interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. date of MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 2 filing of the claim application i.e. 23.12.2002 till its realization to the claimant-injured-Sanjay Kumar Pradhan, who has been impleaded as Respondent No.1 (R-1) towards the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident in an application U/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”). 2. Briefly put, on 22.11.2002 at about 4.30P.M., the claimant while coming on Puri-Bhubaneswar Road on a Luna Moped bearing Regd. No. OR-02T-8134 met with an accident near Pipili Telephone Exchange while an Ambassador Car bearing Regd. No. ORF-1675 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed him and according to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car. Further, the accident was reported to Police and accordingly, Pipili P.S. Case No. 244 of 2002 was registered, which subsequently matured into charge sheet in G.R. Case No. 421 of 2002 of the Court of learned JMFC, Pipili. On the aforesaid fact, the claimant preferred an application U/S. 166 of the Act for compensation towards injury sustained by him in the MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 3 accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending car. 3. In response to the claim, the owner of the offending car after being substituted remains ex-parte, but the insurance company contested the claim by filing the written statement denying the claim of the claimant and pleading inter alia to disown its liability on the ground of offending vehicle plying on the road without valid motor vehicular documents. 4. On inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The claimant in support of his claim, examined 03 witnesses including himself as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited six documents under Exts 1 to 6 as against no oral evidence, but one document under Ext.A by the insurance company. On analysis of the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount indicated supra. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 4 5. Heard, Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1, but none appears for R-2-owner despite valid service of notice. 6. The only ground under which the present appeal has been filed and admitted is with regard to liability of the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant, since it is claimed by the appellant that the driver-cum-owner was having fake driving license and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for violation of policy conditions. However, on going through the impugned judgment, it is found that the learned Tribunal has answered such challenge of the insurer by observing inter alia in page-19 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:- “Although Learned Counsel for O.P No.2 has submitted during argument and before this regarding his claim that the owner-cum- driver was having a fake driving license, he had never pleaded this fact in his pleading. Hence, taking into consideration the judgment pronounced in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Pranab Sundar Sahoo and another reported in 2001 ACJ 2014, it can be concluded that this fact is not relevant to the MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 5 present case and hence needs no consideration at all.” 7. This Court, however, perused the pleadings of the insurance company, but it has not found any specific pleading being raised by the appellant to the fact that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle was having a fake driving license. Law is no more res integra that facts pleaded need to be established to get the relief, but it is a case in which there is no pleading and the rule of pleading as contemplated under Order VI Rule 1 of CPC makes it very clear that “pleading” shall mean plaint and written statement and Rule-2 provides that pleadings to state material facts and not evidence. Further, it is the fundamental rule that every pleading shall contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. In this case, if the materials on record are taken into consideration, it is found that the insurance company has proved one document i.e. true copy of the driving MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 6 license under Ext.A, but rule of pleadings makes it very clear that the pleadings should be material facts, but not evidence. Further, facts needs to be pleaded for claim or defence and in absence of pleading, evidence produced may not be considered. It, therefore, appears to the Court that the insurer has not specifically pleaded about the driver of the offending car holding fake driving license at the relevant time of accident, which is evident from the pleading in the written statement filed by the insurance company and, therefore, facts not pleaded, evidence if let in cannot be considered, which is the classical rule of the pleading. In this case, this Court, therefore, does not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment on the challenge of the appellant for driver of offending car not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time. 8. Even otherwise on consideration of the case on merits, it is found that the learned Tribunal after making assessment of evidence has awarded the following amount under different heads in page 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 7 (i) Expenses towards treatment Including future treatment. -Rs. 30,000/- (ii) Loss of income during treatment. -Rs. 6,000/- (iii) Attendant's charges -Rs. 7,500/- (iv) Special diet -Rs. 7,500/- (V) Loss of pain, suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and Loss of expectation of life. -Rs. 50,000/- Total - Rs. 1,01,000/- On consideration the aforesaid amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal, this Court hardly finds any exorbitant amount awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant. In absence of any legal claim or challenge to the quantum of the compensation, the same need not to be disturbed. Further, grant of compensation in a claim case arising out of use of motor vehicle is a beneficial provision of law and strict procedure of law need not to be followed while advancing justice, but in this case, the claimant has already been awarded with a compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- which appears to be just and proper and this Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned judgment to reduce the MACA No.1340 of 2025 p. 8 compensation amount. No more plea has in fact been advanced/raised to challenge the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed on contest against claimant-R-1, but ex-parte against R-2. The impugned judgment is, hereby, confirmed and the appellant is, hereby, directed to pay the compensation amount within eight weeks hence, failing which the claimant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of law. On deposit of the compensation amount before the learned Tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant proportionately in terms of the award and the statutory deposit with accrued interest thereon be refunded back to the appellant insurance company on production of proof of receipt showing deposit of amount before the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of April, 2026/S.Sasmal Designation: Jr. Stenographer