The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sudesh @ Swadesh & Ors.

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 seeking release of amount.

2. Notice in this Application was issued by this Court on 08.04.2025.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Reply has been filed. The same is, however, not on record. 3.[1] Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant orally contends that there is no finding qua the offending vehicle and that the number of the offending vehicle i.e. the tractor was never given by the Respondent NO. 1/Injured. 3.[2] Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company further submits that the Respondent No. 1/Claimant had categorically deposed about the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the Respondent NO. 2/driver and that no other version of accident has come on record except the one that is narrated by the Respondent No. 1/Claimant.

4. A perusal of the Impugned Award shows that the Respondent NO. 1/Claimant had filed the copy of the criminal record which include site plan and the charge sheet which was filed against the Respondent No. 2/driver. Despite this, Respondent No.2 never appeared before the Court. PW[1] Sudesh, the injured, clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.2. No contrary version of the accident has been brought on record. The Respondents examined no witnesses, and even in their written statements, Respondents No.1 and 2 took contradictory stands. While Respondent No.2 claimed he was merely the driver and not the owner of the offending vehicle, he made no statement regarding whether he was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident or about how the accident occurred. Paragraph 19 of the Impugned Award in this behalf is reproduced below:

respondent no. 1 was driving the said vehicle on the date of accident or not. He only submitted in his WS that his driver was driving the vehicle on the date of accident very carefully. He never clarified whether it was respondent no. 1 or not. As already observed, the criminal proceedings are initiated against the respondent no. 1. The respondents have never filed any complaint with any authority in regard to their false implication in the criminal proceedings. During the course of proceedings, my Ld. Predecessor has also recorded a statement of respondent no. 1 for clarifications on 25.05.2022. However, in the statement also he tried to avoid the material questions. He submitted that the tractor in question was given to him by his father for running on hire basis and when asked several times by the Court as to from which time the tractor was given to him for hire basis, he never answered the question. His statement recorded by the Ld. Predecessor in this regard is totally contradictory to his submissions made in the WS. None of the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 has submitted any document or evidence to prove any negligence on the part of the deceased Yashpal or the injured Sudesh.” [Emphasis supplied]

5. The learned Trial Court has further found that the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not examined any witness.

6. It is no longer res integra that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation which is intended to place the claimant in the same position as that of before the accident. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd[1]., has held that MV Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families and thus the provisions of MV Act warrant liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and to fulfil the legislative intent. The relevant extract of the

ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant(s)." [Emphasis Supplied]

7. Accordingly, and for the reasons as stated above, let 50% of the awarded amount inclusive of up to date interest be released to the Respondent No. 1/Claimant in accordance with scheme, as is set out in the Impugned Award.

8. The Application is disposed of. MAC.APP. 371/2024, CM APPLs. 41341/2024[Stay], 21516/2025 [Application for impleadment]

9. The parties shall file their respective written synopsis, not exceeding three pages each, at least three days before the next date of hearing, along with the compilation of judgments, if any, they wish to rely upon. 9.[1] All judgments sought to be relied upon shall be filed with an index which also sets out the relevant paragraph numbers and the proposition of law that it sets forth.

10. List before the concerned Registrar on 12.09.2025, the date already fixed.