Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Subash Chandra Swain & on 18 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.669 of 2020
In the matter of an appeal under Section 173 the M.V.
Act.
..................
Divisional Manager, National .... Appellant
Insurance Co., Ltd.
-versus-
Subash Chandra Swain & .... Respondents
Others
For Appellant : M/s. Mr. P.K. Mahali & N.
Kar.
For Respondents : M/s. P. C. Pattanaik & D.
Patnaik.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 03.05.2025 and Date of Judgment:18.06.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
// 2 //
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging the judgment dtd.13.03.2020 passed by learned
1st M.A.C.T., Puri in M.A.C. No.486 of 2012. Vide the said
judgment, claim application filed by the Claimants-
Respondents in MAC No.486 of 2012 was allowed by the
learned 1st M.A.C.T., Puri.
4. While assailing the award so passed by the learned
Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dtd.13.03.2020,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
contended that since the deceased was the owner-cum-
driver of the offending vehicle, bearing Regd. No. OR-13G-
2530 and the driver-cum-owner was not having valid D.L at
the time of the accident on 01.02.2012, no liability could
have been fastened on the appellant-company.
4.1. It is also contended that the driver was not having
valid D.L. is well proved as after completion of the
investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet for the offence
under Section-181 of the M.V. Act along with offences
under Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C.
Page 2 of 19
// 3 //
4.2. It is also contended that though such a stand was
taken by the appellant-company that appellant is not liable
to pay the compensation as the owner-cum-driver was not
having valid D.L and the same was also discussed by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment, but without due
appreciation of the appellant’s stand and the decisions
governing the field, the appellant was held liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant-respondents. The finding of
the Tribunal that the owner-cum-driver was not having the
valid D.L. so discussed in the impugned judgment reads as
follows:-
“The certified copy of charge-sheet (Ext.2) reveals that
after completion of investigation finding prima facie
evidence the police submitted charge-sheet against the
rider-cum-owner (O.P.No.1) U/s.279/304(A) of I.P.C.
read with Section 181 of the M.V. Act.. However, as no
D.L. belongs to the rider of the offending vehicle has
been seized nor the owner- O.P.No.1 appeared and
proved the D.L. by contesting the case, so the
presumption is that the rider of the offending motor cycle
was riding the same without having valid and effective
D.L. So O.P.No.1. being the owner has thereby violated
the policy condition by riding the motor cycle himself
knowing that he had no valid and effective driving
license at the time of accident. Thus the contention made
on behalf of the O.P.No.2 company is found to be
acceptable in this case”.
4.3. It is contended that on the face of such finding of the
Tribunal, the appellant was held liable to pay the
Page 3 of 19
// 4 //
compensation amount so awarded inter alia on the ground
that the act is a beneficial legislation and the offending
vehicle since was having valid insurance policy, the
appellant is liable to pay the compensation.
4.4. In support of the submission that the appellant is not
liable to pay the compensation as the driver was not having
valid D.L, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
vs. Swaran Singh & Others, reported in (2004) 1 ACC –
194.
4.5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in the case
of Swaran Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing
with a similar issue and after taking note of the various
decisions governing the field, rendered the following
findings, so reflected in Para-106 of the judgment:-
“Summary of findings
106. The summary of our findings to the various issues
as raised in these petitions is as follows:
Page 4 of 19
// 5 //
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party
risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by
compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of
motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance
coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object
and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as
to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim
petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section
149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of
the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as
contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be
proved to have been committed by the insured for
avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for
driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves
defences available to the insurer against either the
insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards
the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured
was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of
the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed
driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the
relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid
their liability must not only establish the available
defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also
establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle;
the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the
said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the
part of the insured concerning the policy condition
regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his
qualification to drive during the relevant period, the
Page 5 of 19
// 6 //
insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability
towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches
on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental
as are found to have contributed to the cause of the
accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy
conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and
the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences
available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving
licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise),
does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to
be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a
person having a learner’s licence, the insurance
companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165
read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of
bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising
in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is
not restricted to decide the claims inter se between
claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer
and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the
claim for compensation and to decide the availability of
defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has
necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes
inter se between the insurer and the insured. The
decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se
between the insurer and insured in the course of
adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants
and the award made thereon is enforceable and
executable in the same manner as provided in Section
174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the
award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the
Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has
satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the
provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as
interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct
that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured
Page 6 of 19
// 7 //
for the compensation and other amounts which it has
been compelled to pay to the third party under the award
of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the
Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to
the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a
certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the
same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of
land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the
recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required
by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured
fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the
insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement
of the award by the Tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the
proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are
intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned
therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid
under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured
can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be
extended to claims and defences of the insurer against
the insured by relegating them to the remedy before
regular court in cases where on given facts and
circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might
delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims”.
4.6. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd.
Vs. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others, reported in (2018) 3
ACC-894. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-7, 8 & 9 of the said
judgment held as follows:-
“7. We have carefully considered the submissions of
the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the
materials placed on record. It is an admitted position that
the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in
question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other
vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased
Page 7 of 19
// 8 //himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased
being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third
party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was
the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving.
A claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the
basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even
when he himself may have caused the accident on
account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can
nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the
same. Therefore, the respondents being the legal
representatives of the deceased could not have
maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma
Saha [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha, (2007)
9 SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443] , was considering a
similar case where the owner himself was driving the
vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a tree
on the roadside as a result of which he died. The Court
held that the claim petition filed by his legal
representatives was not maintainable. It was held thus :
(SCC p. 265, paras 10-11)
“10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the
reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he
himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident
did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he
was driving. The question which arises for consideration
is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 would be maintainable.
11. Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of
indemnification of the insured against the respondent or
an injured person, a third person or in respect of
damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be
fastened with any liability under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being
liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not
arise.”
9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing
the appellant insurer to pay the compensation
determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification
Page 8 of 19
// 9 //
extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited
to Rs 2,00,000 under the contract of insurance, the
respondents are entitled for the said amount towards
compensation. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit
the said sum of Rs 2,00,000 with interest @ 9 per cent
p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of
deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks
from today”.
4.7. It is also contended that similar issue was also before
this Court in MACA No.977 of 2017. This Court vide order
dtd.28.10.2022 held that in absence of valid D.L. of the
driver of the offending vehicle, the insurer cannot be held
liable to indemnify the owner. View expressed in Para-9 of
the order dtd.28.10.2022 reads as follows:-
“9. First coming to the challenge advanced by the
insurer, it is seen that the offending motorcycle was
driven by one Mr. Dillip Kumar Rath, who is Opposite
Party No.1 before the Tribunal. He did not come to
contest the case and there is no dispute about his
ownership of the offending motorcycle. As per the
claimants, said Dillip Kumar Rath was driving the
offending motorcycle at the time of accident. Ext.B is the
certified copy of the driving license of said Dillip Kumar
Rath and as per Ext.B, though he was authorized to
drive the light motor vehicle and light passenger motor
vehicle, but he was not authorized to drive two wheeler
(motorcycle). As such, it is established that the driver-
cum-owner of the offending motorcycle was not having a
valid driving license on the date of accident. Since the
owner is the driver, the negligence and lack of
reasonable care on his part to drive the motorcycle
without a valid driving license is clearly established and
therefore, in terms of the principle decided in the case ofPage 9 of 19
// 10 //National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and
others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, the insurer is not liable to
indemnify the owner. As such the insurer is exempted
from its liability to indemnify the compensation amount
on behalf of the owner”.
4.8. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in
MACA No.108 of 2021. This Court in Para-4 & 7 of order
dtd.25.04.2023 held as follows:-
“4. Mr. Mahali submits on behalf of the insurer that the
accused driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. motor cycle
bearing registration number OD-08-D-3541 is the owner
himself who did not have licence to drive the motor cycle on
the date of accident. The copy of the driving licence
produced under Ext.A on behalf of the insurer discloses that
the licence was issued on 4th November, 2016, whereas the
accident is dated 17th May, 2016. The owner – Respondent
No.4 is unable to produce any material to controvert the fact
that he was driving the vehicle without license. As per the
principles expounded in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 as well as in the
case of Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Company
Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 49, the position has been clarified that
when the owner has consciously permitted the vehicle to be
driven by a person without having authorization to drive, the
insurer is absolved of his liability. This court MACA No.445 of
2020 disposed of on 7th February 2023 and in MACA
No.977 of 2017, disposed of on 28th October, 2022 have also
observed that when the owner is the driver himself and did
not have licence to drive the vehicle, the insurer is exempted
from its liability.
xxx xxx xxx
7. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is
allowed and the insurer – Appellant is exempted from the
liability.
The owner – Respondent No.4 is directed to deposit the
modified compensation amount of Rs.12,57,400/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application till realization, within a period of two months
from today, failing which it is open for the claimants to
realize it from him. The amount shall be disbursed in favourPage 10 of 19
// 11 //of the claimants on such terms and proportion to be decided
by learned tribunal. ”
5. Making all the submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant contended that since the driver
of the offending vehicle, who also happens to be the owner,
was not having valid D.L., appellant is not liable to pay the
compensation and the impugned award passed in that
regard needs interference of this Court.
6. Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand while
supporting the impugned judgment contended that since
the offending vehicle was having valid Insurance Policy,
even though the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid D.L., but the appellant is liable to pay the
compensation so allowed by the Tribunal and the appellant
be allowed right of recovery as against the owner of the
offending vehicle.
6.1. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Singh Ram vs. Nirmala & Others,
Page 11 of 19
// 12 //
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 800. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-
2, 5, 6, 7 & 8 has held as follows:-
“2. The accident took place on 22-3-2010. The
deceased Sunil Kumar was riding a motorcycle bearing
Registration No. HR 04 B 4673. The Tribunal found that
the accident was caused as a result of the rash and
negligent act of the appellant. This finding of fact has not
been disturbed by the High Court. The deceased was
employed as a sweeper in Haryana Roadways and was
engaged on a salary of Rs 11,928 per month. The
Tribunal allowed future prospects of 50%, the deceased
being just short of 36 years of age. After deducting an
amount representing one-fourth of the earnings for
personal expenses, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of
15. The total compensation was computed at Rs
24,15,420 to which the Tribunal added an amount of Rs
20,000 under conventional heads. However, the Tribunal
held that the financial assistance which the heirs of the
deceased would receive over a period of 12 years from
the employee (amounting to Rs 16,16,112) would have to
be deducted from the compensation. After making the
deduction, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs
8,19,500 together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date
of the claim petition. The High Court has enhanced the
compensation to Rs 16,04,912.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Before we advert to the decision in Swaran Singh
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3
SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] a brief reference to the
facts as they emerge from the decision of the Tribunal is
necessary. Initially before the Tribunal the appellant
produced a driving licence issued by the Motor Vehicles
Department, Agra (Ext. R-1). The driving licence was
found to be fake. The statement of the Senior Assistant in
the office of the RTO, Agra was that Ext. R-1 had not
been issued by the office. The Tribunal noted that the
witness had proved the report (Ext. R-2) issued by the
department and concluded that the licence was fake.
Faced with this situation, the appellant attempted to
prove that he held a valid driving licence issued by thePage 12 of 19
// 13 //licensing authority at Jagadhri to drive a motorcycle. The
Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellant for
producing additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that
even otherwise, the licence which was issued by the
licensing authority, Jagadhri for a tractor and car was
valid only until 29-8-2009. The accident took place on 22-
3-2010. The licence was renewed on 28-11-2011 more
than two years after it had expired. On these facts, the
Tribunal observed that on the date of the accident, the
appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence nor was there any evidence to indicate that the
licence was sought to be renewed as required in law,
within 30 days of its expiry. The Tribunal also observed
that the appellant did not hold a valid licence to drive a
motorcycle. On these grounds, the insurer was absolved.
The High Court has confirmed the direction of the
Tribunal to pay and recover.
6. In Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] ,
this Court held that the holder of a driving licence has a
period of thirty days on its expiry, to renew it : (SCC p.
325, paras 45-46)“45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed
in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum
period, namely, when the accident took place and the
date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid
licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for
renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically
without undergoing any further test or without having
been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to
Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence
remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of
its expiry.
46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the
authorities to reject an application for renewal only on
the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of
the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the
provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in
Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted,
would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get
his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he
Page 13 of 19
// 14 //cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall
remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.”
The following conclusion has been recorded in
summation in the judgment : (SCC pp. 341-42, para 110)
“(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of
the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as
contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be
proved to have been committed by the insured for
avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for
driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves
defences available to the insurer against either the
insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards
the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured
was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of
the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed
driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the
relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid
their liability must not only establish the available
defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also
establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle;
the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the
said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the
part of the insured concerning the policy condition
regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his
qualification to drive during the relevant period, the
insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability
towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches
on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental
as are found to have contributed to the cause of the
accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy
conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and
the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences
available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken
reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving
Page 14 of 19
// 15 //
licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise),
does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to
be determined in each case.”
7. In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed
by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in
evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He
produced a licence which was found to be fake. Another
licence which he sought to produce had already expired
before the accident and was not renewed within the
prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years
had expired. The appellant as owner had evidently failed
to take reasonable care [Proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3
SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] ] since he could not have
been unmindful of facts which were within his
knowledge.
8. In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal,
confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot
be faulted. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs”.
6.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, learned
counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 and
2 contended that, appellant has been rightly saddled with
the liability by the Tribunal as it was not proved that the
owner with having conscious knowledge that the driver
having no valid D.L., allowed the driver to drive the vehicle.
It is accordingly contended that the impugned award
requires no interference of this Court. At best while
upholding the award, right of recovery be allowed against
the owner in view of the decisions in the case of Singh
Page 15 of 19
// 16 //
Ram, so passed following the decision in the case of
Swaran Singh as cited (supra).
7. To the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the claimants / Respondents, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the decision in the case of Singh
Ram is not applicable as in the case in hand the owner is
the driver of the offending vehicle. It is also contended that
since the owner is the driver, there is no meaning in
allowing right of recovery against the owner.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that claiming grant of compensation for the death of
the deceased Ranjan Swain in a road accident, which took
place on 01.02.2012, the Claimants-Respondents filed
MACA No.486 of 2012 in the file of learned 1st MACT, Puri
claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. As found from the
impugned judgment, the offending vehicle was being driven
by the driver, who also happens to be the owner of the
offending motor cycle.
Page 16 of 19
// 17 //
8.1. It is not disputed that the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid D.L. at the time of accident
and accordingly charge sheet was filed by the I.O for the
offence under Section-181 of the M.V Act read with Section
279/304(A) of the I.P.C.
8.2. It is found that the Tribunal while passing the
impugned judgment, also came to a finding that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not having valid D.L. and
charge sheet has been filed under Section-181 of the M.V.
Act.
8.3. But it is found that on the face of such finding of the
Tribunal, the Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay the
compensation amount inter alia on the ground that the
provision is a beneficial one and the offending vehicle was
having valid insurance policy.
8.4. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of
Swaran Singh as well as Singh Ram so cited by the
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, it is
the view of this Court that since the driver of the offending
vehicle also happens to be the owner of the said vehicle, the
Page 17 of 19
// 18 //
stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants-respondents that unless and until it is proved
that the owner of the offending vehicle was having
conscious knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle
was not having valid D.L. and accordingly no fault can be
found with the impugned award, is not acceptable. Since
the driver of the offending vehicle is also the owner of the
vehicle, conscious knowledge of the owner that he was not
having valid D.L., is well proved. No right of recovery is
also permissible as the owner is the driver of the offending
vehicle.
8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court placing
reliance on the decision in the case of Swaran Singh as
cited (supra) and more particularly the finding in sub-para
(vii) of Para-106 of the judgment, is of the view that the
appellant is not liable to pay the compensation so awarded.
8.6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned judgment dtd.13.03.2020 so passed by learned
1st M.A.C.T., Puri in M.A.C. No.486 of 2012. While
quashing the same, this Court allows the appeal.
Page 18 of 19
// 19 //
8.7. Statutory amount so deposited be refunded along with
accrued interest, if any, on proper identification.
9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 18th of June, 2025/Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 10:42:48
Page 19 of 19