IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1015 of 2015 In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant -versus- 1.Ramia Oram 2.Surendra Oram 3. Sima Oram (since dead) 4.Sita Oram 5.Kanta Oram 6.Nikita Oram 7.Sitaram Prasad Yadav …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Somanath Roy, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate (R 1-6) Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate (R-7) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of Hearing & Judgment: 19.08.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned 1st M.A.C.T, Sundargarh in MACT Case No.67 of 2007 awarding compensation of Rs.3,21,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. 3. The brief facts of the Claimants are that on 27.12.2006 while the deceased being a helper of the truck travelling in a mini truck bearing registration number OR-15-5121, due to high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner the driver could not control the vehicle as a result of which the truck was capsized and the deceased sustained severe injuries. Thereafter he was shifted to the hospital. While he was undergoing treatment he succumbed to the said injuries. As such claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. 4. Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the claim case denying the liability. Appellant-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-15-5131 (Mini Truck) the alleged accident took place on 27.12.2006 at about 2 PM near village Rasrajpur and in that accident the deceased Haya Oram died ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent? 3. Whether all the opposite parties or any of the opposite party is/are liable to pay compensation? 4. To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled to?” In order to substantiate their claim, Claimant-Petitioner No.3 examined herself as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses examined as P.W.2 and 3 and documents were exhibited on behalf of the Claimants and marked as Exts.1 to 7. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.3,21,700/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Roy for the Appellant- Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was no violation of policy condition particularly when the vehicle was carrying eight persons beyond its carrying capacity was evident from the police papers in G.R. Case No.706 of 2000. As such the impugned award is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that though no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company, referring to the evidence on record, it is clearly borne out that the passengers were travelling which is ex facie in violation of policy stipulation. As, such the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.2600/- whereas the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer at the relevant time was Rs.1650/-. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be interfered with. 6. Learned counsel for the Claimants supports the impugned judgment and submits that since there is no illegality in the impugned judgment the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.7- owner of the offending vehicle, submits that since the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and on the date of accident the offending vehicle having valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants. 8. The liability of Insurance Company incase of policy violation has been restated by the recent judgment of the Apex court in the case of the Sunita Vrs. United insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1 and the principle of “Pay and Recover” has been reiterated. 9. Considering the rival submissions of the Parties, this Court does not find any perversity of appreciation of materials on record warranting interference by this Court. The quantification of compensation in case of a death, at Rs 3,21,700/- in the considered view of this Court passes the test of just compensation. Accordingly, the impugned award does not merit any interference and accordingly the MACA is dismissed. It shall be open for the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the Owner in accordance with law. 10. Within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant on proper application. (V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Ayesha 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1464