M/S. Shriram General vs Tapas Maity And Others on 27 February, 2026

Orissa High Court

M/S. Shriram General vs Tapas Maity And Others on 27 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               MACA No.506 of 2024

   (In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
   the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

   M/s. Shriram General        ...                       Appellant
   Insurance Company Ltd.,
   Bhubaneswar
                      -versus-

   Tapas Maity and others                 ...      Respondents

   For Appellant              : Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate

   For Respondents            : Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate
                                (for RNos.1 & 2)

       CORAM:
                    JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:27.02.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) by the insurance

company(hereinafter referred to as the “Insurer”) is

directed against the impugned judgment dated

26.07.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-I, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as the

“Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.290 of 2020 directing the

insurer to pay a sum of Rs.13,89,472/- together with

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 1 of 12
simple interest (SI) @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 11.12.2020

till realization to the claimants for the death of their son

in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the accident

which gives rise to the present appeal took place on

21.11.2020 at about 3.45 AM when one Biswajit Maity

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) a helper by

profession while proceeding to Bhubaneswar from

Kolkata Airport in a container truck bearing Regd.

No.WB-25G-3877 (hereinafter referred to as “the

offending vehicle”) dashed from behind another truck

near Haladipada bypass on NH60 resulting in injury to

the deceased leading to his death. It was claimed by the

claimants that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

and the accident was registered vide Basta PS Case

No.267 of 2020, which culminated in submission of

charge-sheet. The claimants being the parents of the

deceased had approached the learned Tribunal in an

application U/S.166 of the Act for compensation for the

loss of their sole bread earner-cum-deceased in a motor

vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 2 of 12
of the offending vehicle and the proceeding was

accordingly registered as MAC Case No.290 of 2020.

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim in

MAC Case No.290 of 2020, the owner of the offending

vehicle-cum-R-3 did not prefer to appear despite valid

service of notice and he was, accordingly, set ex parte,

whereas the insurer being represented by the Senior

Executive had filed written statement denying the claim

of the claimants and inter-alia avoiding its liability by

stating in its WS that the deceased was a gratuitous

passenger in the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle

was not having valid and effective license.

3. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned

Tribunal struck as many as four issues and allowed the

parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, claimants

produced oral evidence of two witnesses vide PWs.1 & 2

and proved 10 documents under Exts.1 to 10 as against

oral evidence of one witness vide OPW1 and

documentary evidence of 4 documents under Exts.A to D

by the insurer. After analyzing the evidence on record

upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 3 of 12
the impugned judgment directing the insurer to satisfy

the award and being aggrieved with such award, the

insurer is before this Court in this appeal.

4. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel

for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Bishnubrata Singh,

learned counsel for RNos.1 & 2 in the appeal and

perused the record. The notice against the owner-cum-

R3 stood dispensed with at the inception and it was,

accordingly, considered that if the owner would be liable,

then in that event, notice would be issued to R3-cum-

owner.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the

parties upon perusal of record, this Court has

summarized the following points for determination:-

“(i) whether the deceased was a gratuitous
passenger or helper;

(ii) whether the driver of the offending
vehicle was holding a valid and effective
license as on the date of accident;

(iii) whether the award is excessive or
exorbitant.”

In answering the first point, it appears that the

learned Tribunal vide paragraph-7.1 of the impugned

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 4 of 12
judgment has answered the same and the relevant

observation of the learned Tribunal reads as under:-

“7.1. P.W.1 in his evidence has
categorically stated that the deceased
was working as a helper in the offending
vehicle and such evidence of P.W.1 fully
corroborates his plea made in the claim
application. The O.P. No. 2 doubted the
genuineness of the claimants’ plea only
on the ground that in the police papers
the I.O. has mentioned the name of one
Rahul Singh as a helper of the offending
vehicle. It is found from the charge
sheet submitted by the I.O. vide Ext. 2
that in the Col No. 16, i.e. in brief facts
of the case, he has mentioned about
issuance of injury requisition in favour of
injured-helper, Rahul Singh. On the
basis of such material, an argument was
advanced by O.P. No.2 that the
deceased was not the helper in the
offending vehicle in question and he was
travelling as a gratuitous passenger,
which is not tenable in view of the
cogent, clinching and reliable evidence
on record. On careful scrutiny of Ext. 2,
I found that the I.O. has mentioned
about issuance of injury requisition in
favour of Rahul Singh for his medical
examination. The claimants’ in order to
remove the anomaly in the charge
sheet, examined the I.O. (PW-2), who
conducted the investigation of the case.
P.W. 2 in his evidence has specifically
testified that the accident in question
took place on 21.11.2020 at about 3.45
a.m. The deceased was travelling as a
helper in the offending vehicle and died
in the said accident when the vehicle
dashed against an unknown vehicle due
MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 5 of 12
to rash and negligent driving by the
driver. He has categorically stated that
no other person sustained injury or died
in the said accident. He has further
stated that he held inquest over the
dead body of the deceased. He has
further stated that on completion of
investigation he submitted charge sheet
against the accused-driver, Chhotan
Das. He also stated that the facts
mentioned in Col. No. 16 of Ext. 2
regarding issuance of injury requisition
in favour of injured-Rahul Singh is a
typographical mistake at the time of
preparation of charge sheet. He has also
wrongly mentioned about U.D. Case No.
131 of 2020 in the Col. No. 16 of the
charge sheet which is relating to another
case. On finding of such mistake in the
record, he filed an application before the
Court of JMFC, Basta for correction of
such mistake. He proved such
application vide Ext. 10. The O.P. No.2
though subjected the P.W. 2 to rigorous
cross-examination but failed to elicit
anything from his mouth to show that
Rahul Singh was the helper in the
offending truck and the deceased was
travelling as a gratuitous passenger. The
evidence of P.W. 2 that he has wrongly
mentioned the name of Rahul Singh in
Col. No. 16 of the charge sheet could not
be demolished or shaken in any manner.
Though O.P. No.2 took a specific plea
that the deceased was travelling as a
gratuitous passenger and Rahul Singh
was the helper in the offending vehicle,
yet he didn’t adduce any evidence to
substantiate such plea nor did it elicit
anything from the mouth of P.W.2 to
show that one Rahul Singh was the
helper of the truck at the time of

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 6 of 12
accident and the deceased was a
gratuitous passenger. In course of
hearing, learned counsel for the O.P.
No.2 vehemently urged that the
claimants have colluded with the owner
and the police and foisted this case for
the purpose of getting compensation
from the insurance company inasmuch
as the deceased has been falsely shown
as a helper of the truck. In my view such
contention of learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2 is not based on the evidence
on record but based on suspicion and
surmises. The oral and documentary
evidence on record clearly indicate that
the deceased was travelling in the
offending vehicle as a helper when the
accident in question took place and he
died in a road traffic accident due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver
of the said vehicle.”

6. In the course of hearing, learned counsel

for the parties in fact supplied the copy of depositions of

witnesses examined in this case, but on a careful

scrutiny of evidence of PW1, this Court hardly finds the

appellant to have elicited anything to discredit the above

finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a

helper of the offending vehicle. In addition, the

claimants have also examined the IO of this case as

PW2, who in his Examination-in-Chief has clearly stated

that the deceased was travelling as a helper in the

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 7 of 12
offending vehicle, which in fact could not be demolished

by the appellant-insurer in the cross-examination of

PW2. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and more

particularly in absence of any evidence to hold contrary

that the deceased was not the helper, this Court fully

concurs with the observation of the learned Tribunal

and, accordingly, confirms the deceased to be the helper

of the offending vehicle.

7. Moving back to the next challenge of the

appellant, which is for driver of the offending vehicle not

holding valid and effective license as on the date of

accident, the learned Tribunal in paragraph-9 has

answered the same clearly by observing inter-alia as

under:-

“The OPW-1 during his evidence has
stated that on verification of the driving
licence of the accused driver as seized
by the police, it is found that the driver
is authorised to drive non-transport
vehicle for the period from 11.08.2011
to 10.08.2031 and transport vehicle
from 07.08.2017 to 06.08.2020. The
O.P.W.1 produced the extract of driving
licence of the accused-driver, Chotan
Das, and proved the same as Ext.D. So,
from the above evidence it is evident
that the driver of the offending vehicle
had not possessed a valid driving licence

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 8 of 12
to drive the offending vehicle, which is a
heavy goods carriage transport vehicle.
However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the
Government of India, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways vide its
notification RT-11036/35/2020-MVL has
issued letter to all the Transport
Commissioners of all the States and
Union Territories that the validity of
Fitness, Permit (all types), Driving
Licence, Registration or any other
concerned document(s) whose extension
of validity could not be, or was not likely
to granted due to lock-down and which
had expired since 01.02.2020 or would
expiry by 31-03-2021, the same may be
treated to be valid till 31.03.2021 and
enforcement authorities were advised to
treat such documents valid till
31.03.2021. Since the transport licence
of the accused driver expired on
06.08.2020, which is within the
lockdown period from 01.02.2020 to
31.03.2021, the same is treated as valid
in view of the notification of the
Government of India, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways. So, the
contention raised by learned counsel for
the O.P. No.2 that the accused driver
had no valid and effective driving licence
to the offending vehicle is of no avail
and it is held that all the vehicular
papers of the offending vehicle were
valid and effective on the date of
accident. Therefore, the O.P. No.2 is
liable to pay compensation indemnifying
the O.P. No.1. Accordingly, the Issue
No.(III) & (IV) are answered in favour of
the petitioners.”

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 9 of 12

8. The aforesaid observation of the learned

Tribunal could not be validly disputed by the appellant

and no evidence or material has been produced to

discredit such finding of the learned Tribunal. This Court,

accordingly, concurs with the observation of the learned

Tribunal in this regard that the driver was having valid

and effective license.

9. In coming back to the last issue of

assessment of compensation, there appears no real

dispute with regard to award of compensation under the

heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral

expenses, but the real dispute is with regard to

determination/computation of amount under the head of

loss of dependency. In this case, the learned Tribunal

while assessing the loss of dependency for the claimants

has taken the daily wages notification to assess the

income of the deceased at Rs.308/- per day at the

prevailing time of accident, but the learned Tribunal

calculated the gross annual income of the deceased by

taking 30 working days instead of 26 working days by

excluding the 4 holidays in a month. Hence, the gross

annual income of the deceased would have come around

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 10 of 12
Rs.308/- X 26 X 12 = Rs.96,096/- and adding 40% to it

towards future prospects of the deceased, the net

amount would come around Rs.96,096/- + Rs.96,096/-

X 40% = Rs.1,34,534/-. Since the deceased died as a

bachelor and was aged about 28 years, 50% of the

aforesaid income is required to be deducted towards his

personal leaving expenses and 17 multiplier would be

applicable in this case. Accordingly, the loss of

dependency for the claimants is calculated as 50% of

Rs.1,34,534/-= Rs.67,267/- X 17 = Rs.11,43,539/-.

Hence, the modified compensation would come around

Rs.11,43,539/-+Rs.84,000/-(Damages)= Rs.12,27,539/,

since the deceased died in the year 2020, but in the

meantime, around 5 years have elapsed and, thereby,

an increase of 10% on Rs.70,000/- for every three years

on the non-conventional head of damages is admissible

for the claimants. Thus, the claimants are also entitled

to interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 11.12.2020.

10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in

part on contest, but in the circumstance no order as to

costs and the impugned judgment is modified to the

extent indicated above and the insurer is, hereby,

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 11 of 12
directed to pay compensation of Rs.12,27,539/- together

with 6% interest per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of

the claim application to the claimants. The modified

compensation amount shall be deposited before the

learned Tribunal within eight weeks hence and in case of

deposit of such amount, the same shall be disbursed to

the claimants in terms of the award. The statutory

deposit together with accrued interest thereon shall be

refunded back to the insurer on production of proof of

deposit of modified compensation amount before the

learned Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 27th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-Mar-2026 18:28:10

MACA No.506 of 2024 Page 12 of 12