IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 28643 of 2025 The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mahali, Adv. -Versus- Santilata Malik & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties (s) Mr. Debasish Patnaik, Adv. (for O.P. No.1 & 2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 20.11.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Mr. Debasish Patnaik , learned Advocate files Vakalatnama and enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. The same be kept on record. 3. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2025/Annexure-4 passed by the learned 1st MACT (SD), Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.230 of 2023 rejecting its application under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC read with Section 169(2) of MV Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the insurance company had filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:41:22 Signature Not Verified 2 read with Section 169(2) of M.V Act before the learned Tribunal for issuance of the notice to the Branch Manager, ESIC, Paradeep Branch to produce the detail particulars of the benefits received by the family members of the deceased, as the deceased was enrolled under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Scheme. He further submits that as per the provision under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC, the court can summons to any person to produce any document required by the court/Tribunal. Under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC also authorizes the court/Tribunal to direct production of any document, if it relates to any matter in question. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that under Section 169(2) of the MV Act, 1988 also authorizes that the claim tribunal to exercise the power of a Civil Court which includes to enforce the attendance of the witness and compel production of a document and it shall be deemed as a Civil Court. Hence, the rejection of the Petition filed by the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argues that since the evidence of the Branch Manager ESIC is necessary for determining the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal should have allowed the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Petitioner. But, the learned Tribunal vide order Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:41:22 Signature Not Verified 3 dated 08.07.2025 had rejected the petition filed by the Insurance Company. The ordering portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “As per provision enacted Under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC, only a party can be directed to produce any documents which is essential to answer an issue, if it is established that, he is in possession of that document. In the instant case, ESI is not a party to this proceeding. So, the provision enacted U/o.11 Rule 14 of CPC, cannot be exercised against a third party. When, RTI Application was filed before the PIO of the ESI to obtain the death benefit given to the petitioner and it was rejected, it should have been carried in appeal. The OP No.2 remain silent. What was the exact benefit given to the petitioner and when has not been disclosed. It appears that, the OP No.2 is utilizing this forum in the disguise of Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC which is nothing but a fishing enquiry. A tribunal/court cannot assist the party in collection of evidence. It is the sole responsibility of the party concern to procure and produce the evidence before the tribunal/Court. In the instant case, it is the burden of OP No.2 to establish, if any death benefit has been given to the petitioners. By taking the aid of the above provisions, this tribunal cannot go on for a fishing enquiry to assist OP No.2. In that view of matter, the petition filed U/o.11 Rule 14 of CPC r/w Sec-169(2) of MV Act is rejected. The evidence from the side of OP No.2 is closed. Put up on 29.07.2025 for argument.” 7. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the learned 1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur has erred in law by not allowing the examination of the Branch Manager, ESIC, Paradeep. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned 1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.230 of 2023 is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to allow the Insurance Company to examine the Branch Manager, ESIC, Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:41:22 Signature Not Verified 4 Paradeep. Further, the learned Tribunal while disposing of the aforesaid MAC case shall look into the provision under Sections 53 and 61 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 regarding maintainability of the claim application. 8. It is made clear that, the aforesaid MAC case be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu