IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST MACT-CUM-

DISTRICT JUDGE, DHENKANAL.

Present: Sri J.P. Mohanty, O.S.J.S.

District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T,
Dhenkanal (J.O Code OD-0190)

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2023.

M.A.C. No. 21 of 2018.

Raghunath Rout, aged about 18 years, S/o. late Manoj Rout
of village. Mahadia, P.O. Belapada, P.S. Motonga, District.
Dhenkanal.
… Petitioner.
AND
M.A.C. No. 22 of 2018
Raghunath Rout, aged about 18 years, S/o. late Manoj Rout
of village. Mahadia, P.O. Belapada, P.S. Motonga, District.
Dhenkanal.
… Petitioner.
-Versus-

1. Maniruddin Khan, S/o. Rasid Khan, At-Nuapatna, P.O.

Pankal, P.S. Tigiria, Dist. Cuttack.
(First owner of Truck No.OR-19-C-0150).
2. Satyanarayan Pradhan, At-Handidhuan, Talcher, P.S.
Talcher, District. Angul, PIN- 759100
(Second owner of Truck No.OR-19-C-0150).
3. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company
Ltd., At-Hanuman Bazar, Angul, PO/ District. Angul.
4. Sailendri Rout, wife of Tapas Kumar Senapati, D/o.
late Manoj Rout, At Mahadia, P.O. Belapada, P.S.
Motonga, Dist. Dhenkanal (added vide order dated
17.3.2023)
… Opp. Parties (In both cases).
____________________________________________
For petitioner (in both cases): Sri A.K Mohanty and
Associate, Advocates.
For O.P Nos.1 & 2 (in both cases): Ex-parte.
For O.P No.3 (in both cases): Sri D. Mishra, Advocate.
For O.P No.4 (in both cases): Sri S.K Routray and
Associates, Advocates.
____________________________________________
 2

Date of argument:22.06.2023
Date of Judgment:29.06.2023
JUDGMENT

Both the above M.A.Cs arise out of one and

same accident, for which, the same were heard
analogously and disposed of by this common
judgment.
During hearing of the case, one Sailendri Rout,
claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased
persons filed a petition U/O.1, Rule-10 (2) of C.P.C to
add her as a party in this case and after hearing of the
said petition, the same was allowed and she was added
as OP No.4 in this case.
The petitioner, being the son of deceased Manoj
Rout and deceased Sanjukta Rout, has filed MAC No.
21/2018 & MAC No.22/2018 claiming compensation
of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively from
O.P Nos.1, 2 and 3 following the death of the deceased
persons in a vehicular accident on 30.10.2017.
2. The case of the petitioner in both the MACs is
that on 30.10.2017, at about 8.30 P.M, when both the
deceased were returning from their Railway Quarters,
Dhenkanal to their native village Mahadia by a Hero
Honda CD 100 SS motor cycle, near Gundichapada
Chhak, in front of IPI Steel Ltd., the offending vehicle
(truck) bearing Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150 being driven
by its errant driver in a rash and negligent manner first
dashed with another truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-H-
 3

2926 and due to impact of such dashing, the said

offending vehicle rushed towards the motor cycle and
dashed against both the deceased from their back side,
as a result of which, they sustained multiple grievous
injuries on their respective persons. Immediately, both
were shifted to D.H.H., Dhenkanal and the doctor
declared Sanjukta Rout, the mother of the present
petitioner as dead and as the condition of Manoj Rout,
the father of the petitioner became serious there, he
was shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar and while
undergoing treatment there, he succumbed to the
injuries on 31.10.2017.
It is the further case of the petitioner in MAC
No.21/2018 that deceased Manoj Rout was aged about
44 years at the time of accident and he was getting
gross salary of Rs.47,448/- per month serving as a
Blacksmith in East Coast Railway, Khurda Road at
Dhenkanal. It is also claimed by the petitioner that he
has already spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the
treatment of deceased Manoj Rout. In MAC
No.22/2018, the petitioner has claimed that deceased
Sanjukta Rout was aged about 36 years at the time of
her death and she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month
from her business by delivering grocery items.
It is further stated by the petitioner that due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, the accident took place without any
fault of the deceased persons. It is also the case of the
 4

petitioner that the offending vehicle was covered with a

valid insurance policy vide Policy No.163800/31/17/
6300002550 with OP No.3 valid from 19.07.2017 to
18.07.2018 and the driver of that vehicle was also
having a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle
at the relevant time of the accident.
Thus, attributing rash and negligent driving on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as the
sole cause of the accident causing the death of both the
deceased, the petitioner in both the MACs has laid his
claim against the owners of the said two trucks and the
insurer of the offending vehicle by arraying them as
O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
3. Being noticed, O.P. No.1, the owner of the
offending vehicle appeared before this Tribunal and
filed his written statement. In his written statement, he
has admitted to be the owner of the offending vehicle
and pleaded that his vehicle was having a valid R.C
Book, insurance policy, permit etc. and that the driver
of the said vehicle was also having a valid DL to drive
the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Hence,
there was no violation of policy condition by him on
the date of accident and accordingly, he is not liable to
pay any compensation to the petitioner and if any
award is made by this Tribunal, it is only O.P. No.3,
the insurance company, who is liable to pay the same.
However, OP No.1 did not participate in the hearing of
the case during trial and accordingly, he was set
 5

exparte. O.P No.2, the owner of the truck bearing

Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150 did not appear before this
Tribunal to contest the proceeding, for which, he was
set ex parte.
O.P. No.3, the Insurance Company appeared
before this Tribunal and filed its written statement. In
its written statement, it has resisted the claim of the
petitioner in both the MACs for paying compensation
to him by pleading that the accident occurred due to the
fault of both the deceased and hence, the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioner. It has further disputed the claim of the
petitioner as to the occupation, income and age of the
deceased persons. It has disowned its relationship with
O.P. Nos.1 and 2 as their insurer and denied to
indemnify the owners for breach of policy condition.
Thus, it has tried to avoid its liability to pay any
compensation to the petitioner and has prayed to
dismiss of both the MACs.
4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions
of the parties, the following issues are framed in
respect of both the MACs.
MAC No.21/2018
ISSUES
(1) Whether the MAC is maintainable?
(2) Whether Manoj Rout succumbed to
injuries in an accident that took place
on 30.10.2017, at about 8.30 P.M, on
N.H.55 at Gundichapada near IPI
STEEL under the jurisdiction of
 6

Sadar P.S, Dist. Dhenkanal and

whether the said accident was caused
by rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle
(Truck) bearing Regd. No.OR-19-C-
0150?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to
get compensation, if so, from whom
and to what extent?
(4) To what other relief (s), the petitioner
is entitled?

MAC No.22/2018
ISSUES
(1) Whether the MAC is maintainable?
(2) Whether Sanjukta Rout succumbed
to injuries in an accident that took
place on 30.10.2017 at about 8.30
P.M on N.H.55 at Gundichapada
near IPI STEEL under the
jurisdiction of Sadar P.S, Dist.
Dhenkanal and whether the said
accident was caused by rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle (Truck) bearing
Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to
get compensation, if so, from whom
and to what extent?
(4) To what other relief (s), the petitioner
is entitled?

5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner in both

the MACs examined himself as P.W.1 and another
independent eye-witness to the alleged accident as
P.W.2. The petitioner has also relied on certain
 7

documents vide Exts.1 to 15 in support of his case in

both the MACs.
On the other hand, OP No.3 though did not
tender any oral evidence, it has relied on two
documents vide Exts.A and B to substantiate its plea.
FINDINGS
Issue Nos.1 & 2 (In both the MACs):
6. These two issues being most vital and
interlinked with each other, I am inclined to take up
these issues together first for discussion in both the
MACs.
The petitioner in both the MACs has claimed
that both the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending Truck bearing Regd.No.OR-19-C-0150.
Hence, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to
substantiate such claim.
The petitioner in both the MACs has examined
himself as P.W.1 and another independent eye witness
to the alleged accident as P.W.2. PW.1 in his testimony
has corroborated his case in material particulars by
stating that on 30.10.2017, at about 8.30 PM, while his
father Manoj Rout and mother Sanjukta Rout were
returning to his village Mahadia on a motor cycle on
the left side of NH-55, near Gundichapada, in front of
IPI Steel Ltd., the offending truck bearing Regd.
No.OR-19-C-0150 dashed against another truck
bearing Regd.No.OD-05-H-2926 and due to the impact
 8

of such dashing, the offending vehicle rushed towards

the motor cycle of both the deceased and dashed
against them from their back side, as a result of which,
both sustained multiple grievous injuries on their
person. Immediately, they were shifted to D.H.H,
Dhenkanal for treatment and the doctor of the said
Hospital declared Sanjukta Rout as dead and as the
condition of the deceased Manoj Rout became serious,
he was shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar,
admitted there as an indoor patient and while
undergoing treatment there, he succumbed to the
injuries on 31.10.2017. P.W.2, the independent eye
witness to the alleged accident has supported the
version of P.W.1 in material particulars as to rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
offending truck bearing Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150 and
succumbing of both the deceased.
Nothing has surfaced during cross-examination
to entertain any doubt about the accident caused by the
driver of the offending vehicle in question. The
evidence of these witnesses further finds ample support
from contemporaneous documentary evidence placed
on record i.e. the FIR (Ext.1) showing registration of a
case against the driver of the offending truck bearing
Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150 and the charge sheet (Ext.2)
showing culmination of investigation and submission
of charge sheet against Chhabindra Kumar Nayak, the
driver of the offending vehicle to face trial in the Court
 9

of law U/Ss.279/338/304 (A) of the IPC, the seizure

list (Ext.3) showing seizure of the offending truck
bearing Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150 and its documents by
police and the zimanama (Ext.5) showing taking of
zima of the offending vehicle and its documents by its
owner. The evidence of the petitioner also finds
support from the inquest reports (Exts.7 and 8), the
dead body challans (Ext.9 & 10) and the P.M reports
(Ext.11 and Ext.12) of both the deceased. O.P No.3 has
not disputed the aforesaid documents in any manner.
The inquest reports and P.M examination reports in
respect of the both the deceased go a long way to
indicate that both the deceased succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the said vehicular accident.
Accordingly, I conclude that the accident in
question took place on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
bearing Regd.No.OR-19-C-0150, causing the death of
both the deceased, namely, Manoj Rout and Sanjukta
Rout. Hence, I am inclined to answer issue Nos.1 and
2 in favour of the petitioner in both the MACs.
Issue No.3 (In both the MACs):
7. So far as both the MACs are concerned, the
petitioner is the son of both the deceased and OP No.4
is the daughter of both the deceased. O.P. No.3 has not
disputed this aspect in any manner. Therefore, they are
entitled for compensation, being the dependents of
 10

both the deceased. Now it is to be seen as to what

would be the quantum of compensation.
It is the settled position of law that three factors
need to be established by the petitioners for assessing
compensation in case of death. (Smt. Sarala Verma &
others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, reported in (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 349). Those
are: (1) the age of the deceased, (2) income of the
deceased and (3) number of dependants of the
deceased. Moreover, it is also settled that other issues
to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income, (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased.
In MAC case No.21/2018, the petitioner has
claimed that deceased Manoj Rout was aged about 44
years at the time of his death. The certified copy of
Inquest report (Ext.7) and the PM report (Ext.11)
reveal the age of the deceased as 45 years. In this case,
the petitioner has filed an Identity Card issued by East
Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division and a photo
copy of DL in this case, which reveal the date of birth
of the deceased as 01.11.1973. Keeping in view such
entry in both these documents issued in favour of
deceased Manoj Rout, his age is calculated as 43 years
11 months 29 days i.e. 44 years as on the date of his
 11

death. OP No.3 has not disputed the age of the said

deceased by adducing any rebuttal evidence. Hence, I
am inclined to hold that the deceased was 44 years at
the time of his death and the said age comes within the
age group of 41 to 45 years and multiplier “14” is to be
applied in this case.
Now coming to the profession of the deceased
Manoj Rout, the petitioner has stated that his deceased
father was working as a Black Smith in East Coast
Railway at Dhenkanal. In order to prove the profession
and income of the deceased, the petitioner has filed a
photo copy of Identity Card bearing Sl. No. ENG
001403 of deceased Manoj Rout issued by Senior
DPO/KUR of Khurda Road Division. That apart, he
has also filed a salary bill for the month of October,
2017 (Ext.15) issued in favour of the said deceased by
the East Coast Railway, Khurda Division. Though O.P
No.3 has formally challenged the same, it has not
adduced any evidence to rebut the same. Nothing has
surfaced during cross-examination of the witness to
entertain any doubt about his employment as a Black
Smith in the aforesaid Department.
Now coming to the income of the deceased, the
petitioner has stated that the deceased was working as a
Blacksmith under East Coast Railway at Dhenkanal
and getting salary of Rs.47,448/- per month. Perusal of
the said salary bill (Ext.15), it reveals that in the month
of October, 2017, the deceased was drawing gross
 12

salary of Rs.47,448/- and after deduction of house Rent

of Rs.99/- and professional tax of Rs.200/-, his salary
comes to Rs.47,149/-, to say Rs.47,150/- per month.
Though, the aforesaid document has been disputed by
OP No.3, it has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to
disprove the same. Accordingly, I calculate the
monthly income of the deceased Manoj Rout at
Rs.47,150/- per month and accordingly, his annual
income comes to Rs.5,65,800/-.
However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vrs Pranay Sethi and others,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, when deceased is self
employed or on fixed salary an addition of 25% of the
established income should be warranted when the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. The
deceased, in the case in hand was on fixed salary and
working as a Blacksmith under East Coast Railway.
Hence, his established income per annum to be
enhanced with 25% for the purpose of determination of
loss of dependency and his income comes to
Rs.5,65,800/- + Rs.1,41,450/- = Rs.7,07,250/-. Hence,
the annual income towards loss of dependency comes
to Rs.7,07,250/-.
At the time of death, the deceased was having
two dependents. Hence, I deduct 1/3rd of the aforesaid
amount towards personal living expenses of the
deceased persons had they been alive. Accordingly,
 13

I calculate the total annual loss of dependency at

Rs.4,71,500/- (7,07,250-2,35,750). Applying multiplier
'14', the loss of future income/dependency comes to
Rs.66,01,000/- (4,71,500 x 14).
As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs
Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, the petitioner and OP No.4 are entitled to get a
sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
As discussed above, deceased Manoj Rout
succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment
at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner has
claimed that he had already spent an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards treatment of deceased Manoj
Rout. In order to prove the expenditure incurred
towards the treatment of his deceased father, the
petitioner has filed the original death summary
(Ext.13) in respect of his treatment issued by AMRI
Hospital, Bhubaneswar and medicine bills amounting
to Rs.47,642/- (Ext.14) in this case. Perusal of Ext.14
reveals that Rs.47,642/-, to say Rs.47,640/- has been
spent towards treatment of the deceased. The aforesaid
document has not been disputed by OP No.3 in any
manner. Thus, this Tribunal concluded that the
petitioner is entitled to get Rs.47,640/- towards
medical expenses for the treatment of the deceased
Manoj Rout at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar.
 14

Thus, in MAC case No.21/2018, the petitioner

and OP No.4 are entitled to get the compensation, as
under:
i) Loss of dependency Rs. 66,01,000/-
ii) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
iv) Medical Bills Rs. 47,640/-
Total Rs. 66,78,640/-

Thus, I am inclined to award Rs.66,78,640/-

(Rupees sixty six lakhs seventy eight thousand six
hundred forty) only to the petitioner and OP No.4 in
MAC No.21/2018 towards compensation for the death
of deceased Manoj Rout in the said vehicular accident.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman
Vrs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company and another, reported in 2012, ACJ, 191,
have held that there is no bar to award compensation
more than the claim amount. In the present case, the
petitioner has advanced a claim of Rs.50,00,000/-
towards compensation, but this Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.66,78,640/- considering the facts
and circumstances of the case.
8. In MAC No.22/2018, the petitioner has claimed
that deceased Sanjukta Rout was 36 years old at the
time of her death. The certified copies of Inquest report
(Ext.8), dead body challan (Ext.10) and P.M report
(Ext.12) show that deceased Sanjukta Rout was aged
 15

about 36 years at the time of her death. No other

document has been filed by the petitioner to prove the
age of the said deceased in this case. O.P No.3 has
neither seriously objected the age of the deceased nor
filed any document to rebut the same. Hence,
considering the oral evidence so adduced by the
petitioner and considering the age as mentioned in the
PM report and inquest report, I am inclined to hold that
deceased Sanjukta Rout was 36 years old at the time of
her death and such age comes within the age group of
36-40 years and multiplier “15” is to be applied in this
case.
So far as the profession and income of deceased
Sanjukta Rout is concerned, it is stated by P.W.1 (the
petitioner) that at the time of death of the deceased, she
was making home delivery of grocery items and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But not a single scrap
of paper has been filed in this case to prove the
profession and income of the deceased. OP No.3 has
not seriously objected the income and profession of the
deceased by adducing any rebuttal evidence. Hence,
keeping in view the oral evidence adduced by the
petitioner, I am inclined to fix the monthly income of
the deceased @ 6000/- per month notionally and
accordingly, her annual income is calculated at
Rs.72,000/-. At the time of death, the deceased was
having two dependents. Hence, I deduct 1/3rd of the
aforesaid amount towards personal living expenses of
 16

the deceased had she been alive. Accordingly,

I calculate the total annual loss of dependency at
Rs.48,000/- (72,000-24,000). Applying multiplier '15',
the loss of future income/dependency comes to
Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 15). Accordingly, the total
loss of dependency/future income comes to
Rs.7,20,000/-.
As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs
Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, petitioner and OP No.4 are entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate.
Thus, the petitioner and OP No.4 in MAC
No.22/2018 are entitled to get compensation as under:
i) Loss of dependency Rs. 7,20,000/-
iii) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
v) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 7, 50,000/-

Thus, the petitioner and OP No.4 in MAC

No.22/2018 are entitled to get Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees
seven lakhs fifty thousand)only towards compensation
for the death of deceased Sanjukta Rout in the said
vehicular accident.
9. Now, the question comes as to who of the O.P
Nos.1, 2 and 3 is liable to pay the aforesaid
compensation to the petitioner and OP No.4. This
Tribunal has already discussed in issues No.1 & 2 that
 17

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending truck bearing Regd.No.OR-19-C-0150
the accident took place. As such, the owner of the
vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify the owner and if the
insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid and
effective as on the date of accident and all other
documents including the DL of the driver of the said
vehicle were valid and effective at the relevant time of
accident.
The petitioner in both the MACs has claimed
that the offending vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR-19-C-
0150 was duly insured with O.P No.3 and its driver
was having a valid and effective D.L at the time of
accident.
The learned counsel for O.P No.3 has filed the
permit particulars vide Ext.A and vehicle details vide
Ext.B of the offending vehicle issued by Regional
Transport Office, Talcher obtained through RTI Act
and submitted that Ext.A has been issued in favour of
one Satyanarayan Pradhan (O.P No.2), whereas Ext.B
has been issued in favour of one Maniruddin Khan (OP
No.1) and hence, it is not clear as to who was the
owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant time of
accident and hence, OP No.3 cannot be held liable to
 18

pay compensation to the petitioner as there was

violation of policy conditions.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in both the MACs submitted that OP No.2
Satyanarayan Pradhan was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle from 10.08.2005 to 1.11.2017 and as
he transferred the offending vehicle to one Maniruddin
Khan thereafter, the latter became the registered owner
of the said vehicle from 2.11.2017 to 17.7.2020, but as
the permit of the offending vehicle was valid from
19.8.2015 to 18.8.2020 in the name of Satyanarayan
Pradhan, OP No.1 did not take any step to replace his
name in the permit and hence, there was no gross
violation on the part of both the owners and that can be
overlooked in the interest of justice. He has also filed a
computer generated copy of registered vehicle details
in respect of the offending vehicle in this case, which
shows that Satyanarayan Pradhan was the owner of the
offending vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-19-C-0150
from 10.08.2005 to 01.11.2017 and Maniruddin Khan
was the owner of the offending vehicle from 2.11.2017
to 17. 07. 2010.
Perusal of Ext.A, B & other documents available
on record, it is found that even though the documents,
such as insurance policy and permit were valid at the
relevant time of accident, the same were recorded in
the name of both the owners due to transfer of
ownership between them and non-taking of steps for
 19

entering their names in the aforesaid documents and

hence, it cannot be said that there was gross violation
on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2.
During investigation, police had seized the
offending vehicle and its documents, such as, RC
particulars, fitness certificate, road permit and
insurance policy of the offending vehicle including the
DL of the driver of the said vehicle, namely,
Chhabindra Kumar Nayak vide Ext.3 and the same
were released in zima of the owner of the said vehicle
vide Ext.5. Ext.5 reveals that the insurance policy of
the offending vehicle was valid up to 18.7.2018. The
petitioner has filed the photo copy of the insurance
policy in this case, which reveals that the insurance
policy bearing No.163800/31/17/6300002550 was
valid from 19.07.2017 to 18.07.2018 issued by
National Insurance Company Ltd. The accident took
place on 30.10.2017. O.P. No.3 has not seriously
challenged the aforesaid insurance policy by adducing
any rebuttal evidence. Thus, I am inclined to hold that
the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid
and effective as on the date of accident.
So far as the DL of the driver of the said vehicle
is concerned, the petitioner has filed a photo copy of
the DL of the driver, which reveals that it was valid
and effective till 14.09.2018 to drive Transport
vehicles and also valid till 18.02.2021 to drive Non-
transport vehicles. O.P.No.3 has not seriously
 20

challenged the validity of the DL of the driver of the

offending vehicle by adducing any rebuttal evidence.
Hence, I am inclined to hold that on the date of
accident, the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle
was valid and effective. In addition to the above
documents, the petitioner has also filed the photo
copies of vehicle particulars, certificate of Registration,
Goods carriage permit, Fitness Certificate and other
documents relating to the offending Truck bearing
Regd. No.OR-19-C-0150, which show that the above
documents were valid and effective at the time of
accident. Thus, I am inclined to hold that the insurance
policy of the offending vehicle and the DL of the driver
of the said vehicle and other documents were valid and
effective as on the date of accident i.e. 30.10.2017.
In view of the aforesaid fact, O.P.No.3, the
Insurance Company is held liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner and OP No.4 of both
the MACs.
Issue No.4 (In both the MACs):
10. It is well settled that this Tribunal has ample
jurisdiction to impose interest on the awarded amount
keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case. In the instant case, it is felt that ends of justice
would be better served if interest @ 7% per annum be
imposed on the awarded amount and accordingly, the
compensation as awarded shall be paid to the petitioner
in both the MACs with simple interest @ 7% per
 21

annum from the date of filing of both the MACs i.e.

10.01.2018. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
Both the M.A.Cs be and the same are allowed in
part on contest against the Opp. Party No.3 and ex
parte against O.Ps No.1 and 2, but in the circumstances
without cost.
O.P. No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay
Rs.66,78,640/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs seventy eight
thousand six hundred forty) only as compensation to
the petitioner and OP No.4 in MAC No.21/2018 and
Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) only
as compensation the petitioner and OP No.4 in MAC
No.22/2018 with simple interest @ 7% per annum in
each case within a period of three months on the
respective awarded amount from the date of filing of
the claim petitions i.e.10.01.2018 till its payment,
failing which, the petitioner and OP No.4 of both the
MACs are at liberty to realize the same through
process of law.
Out of the total award amount of Rs.66,78,640/-
in MAC No.21/2018, the petitioner, being the son of
deceased Manoj Rout will get Rs.45,00,000/- and OP
No.4, being the married daughter of deceased Manoj
Rout will get Rs.21,78,640/-.
Out of Rs.45,00,000/- awarded in favour of the
petitioner, Rs.27,00,000/- shall be kept in an
unencumberable fixed deposit scheme in his name and
 22

the balance of Rs.18,00,000/- alongwith accrued

interest on Rs.45,00,000/- shall be paid to him in cash.
Likewise, OP No.4, being the married daughter of
deceased Manoj Rout will get Rs.21,78,640/-, out of
which, Rs.13,00,000/- shall be kept in an
unencumberable fixed deposit scheme in her name and
the balance of Rs.8,78,640/- alongwith accrued interest
on Rs.21,78,640/- shall be paid to her in cash.
Out of the total award amount of Rs.7,50,000/-
in MAC No.22/2018, the petitioner, being the son of
deceased Sanjukta Rout will get Rs.5,00,000/-, out of
which, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in an
unencumberable fixed deposit scheme in his name and
the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith accrued interest
on Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to him in cash.
Likewise, OP No.4, being the daughter of deceased
Sanjukta Rout will get Rs.2,50,000/-, out of which,
Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in an unencumberable fixed
deposit scheme in her name and the balance of
Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith accrued interest on
Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid to her in cash.
It is further directed that the aforesaid fixed
deposits in respect of petitioner and OP No.4 in both
the MACs shall be made for a period of six years in a
nationalized bank nearest to their residence with
provision of grant of interest accrued on the fixed
deposits at quarterly rest to them subject to the
condition that no loan, mortgage or premature
 23

withdrawal shall be allowed without leave of this

Tribunal.
O.P No.3, the insurance company is directed to
issue cheques accordingly.
The required court fees on the awarded amount
in MAC No.21/2018 and the claimed amount in MAC
No.22/2018, if not paid earlier, shall be realized from
the petitioner and OP No.4 at the time of payment.
Delivered in the open Court, on this the 29th day
of June, 2023.
1st.MACT-cum-District Judge,
Dhenkanal.
29.06.2023
Dictated and corrected by me

1st. MACT-cum-District Judge,

Dhenkanal.
29.06.2023

Witnesses examined for petitioner in both the MACs.

P.W.1 Raghunath Rout.
P.W.2 Suresh Chandra Lenka
Witnesses examined for O.P No.3 in both the MACs.
None
Documents marked for petitioner in both the MACs.
Ext.1 C.C of FIR
Ext.2 C.C of Charge sheet.
Ext.3 & 4 C.C of seizure lists.
Exts.5 & 6 C.C of zimanamas.
Exts.7 & 8 C.C of Inquest Reports.
Ext.9 &10 C.C of Dead Body Challans.
Ext.11&12 C.C of Post mortem Examination Reports.
Ext.13 Original Death Summary.
Ext.14 Medicine Bills.
Ext.15 Salary Particulars.
 24

Documents marked for OP No.3 in both the MACs.

Ext.A Vehicle Permit details of vehicle bearing
Regd. No. OR-19-C-0150 through RTI
vide letter No.3117 dated 29.12.2018.
Ext.B Vehicle details for vehicle bearing Regd.
No.OR-19-C-0150 through RTI vide letter
No.3118 dated 29.12.2018.

1st.MACT-cum-District Judge,
Dhenkanal
29.06.2023