1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned MACT, Cuttack, and to summon specific documents from third parties, which the Petitioner claims are essential to establish contributory negligence and accurately determine the quantum of compensation.

Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(i) The petitioner is a registered General Insurance Company with its Head Office at Pune, Maharashtra, carrying out business operations across India, including within the jurisdiction of this Court. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings relating to MAC Case No. 403 of 2020, pending before the learned 2nd 1st ADJ-cum-5th MACT, Cuttack.

(ii) The opposite parties filed a compensation application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹1,20,00,000 on account of the death of Late Binayak Mohanty in a road accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 48 years old and was serving as a Deputy General Manager under SSNR Project Pvt. Ltd., drawing a salary of ₹60,100 per month.

(iii) The case of the claimants is that on 27.02.2020, while the deceased was traveling towards his company in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. OD-10-F-7979, a container truck bearing registration No. HR-55-Q- 9767, driven rashly and negligently, dashed into the Bolero, causing fatal injuries to the deceased. An FIR was lodged at Sector-1, Pithampur Police Station, Madhya Pradesh, leading to a charge sheet against the driver of the container truck after investigation.

(iv) The claimants, to substantiate their case, examined the wife of the deceased as P.W.-1 and the employer of the deceased as P.W.-2, producing appointment letters, appraisal certificates, salary slips, Form- 16, and a vehicle allotment letter. An independent eyewitness was also Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 examined to corroborate the manner of the accident and the involvement of the container truck.

(v) The petitioner-insurance company, while contesting the claim, filed applications before the MACT seeking production of the deceased's bank statement from Axis Bank, Sector-6, CDA, Cuttack, and seeking production of own damage claim documents relating to the Bolero vehicle from United India Insurance Company, to establish contributory negligence and verify the actual income of the deceased.

(vi) The petitioner contended that their independent investigation revealed that the deceased was allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol and had dashed into the container truck from behind. It was further contended that the deceased's income had not been adequately established as there was no NEFT evidence or bank transaction proof produced by the claimants.

(vii) The learned MACT rejected both applications filed by the petitioner on 15.02.2024, holding that the salary documents produced by the employer sufficiently established the income of the deceased and that the bank account being sought was not at the Cuttack branch but at the Indore branch. It also held that the police investigation and the eyewitness testimony had already confirmed the involvement of the container truck.

(viii) Aggrieved by the rejection of their applications, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking quashing of the order dated 15.02.2024 and issuance of directions to summon the concerned documents, claiming that denial of opportunity to produce such evidence amounts Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 to violation of principles of natural justice and may lead to grave prejudice.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05

(vi) The petitioner submits that there is no alternative or efficacious remedy available to redress this grievance except by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

However, the FIR and charge sheet clearly establish that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the container truck, not by any fault of the deceased or the Bolero vehicle. Hence, summoning the Bolero's insurer and owner is unnecessary and misplaced. Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05

(v) The claimants contend that the present writ petition filed by the insurance company against the rejection order of the MACT is not maintainable. The rejection of applications does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice and was passed after proper consideration of facts and law. IV. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED MACT:

5. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence on record sufficiently proved both the manner of accident and the income of the deceased, and that no additional summoning of documents was warranted.

6. It emphasized that the Insurance Company retains the opportunity to lead its own evidence regarding contributory negligence if it chooses to do so.

7. Both petitions filed by the Insurance Company were found to be lacking in merit and were accordingly rejected.

8. The Tribunal concluded that issuing summonses in the manner sought by the Insurance Company would not materially assist in the adjudication of the pending claim case and would amount to a fishing enquiry.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

9. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

10. The heart of the dispute lies in the fact that The heart of the dispute lies in the fact that the Insurance Company, while defending its liability in a motor accident compensation case, seeks to summon third-party records to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 and to question the quantum of compensation. The rejection of its applications by the Tribunal is challenged as denying a fair opportunity to produce relevant evidence, though the Tribunal has found the existing record sufficient to proceed without further inquiry.

11. The first issue that warrants consideration by this Court is whether the Insurance Company's assertion of contributory negligence has any legal foundation. It is a settled principle of law that contributory negligence must be established affirmatively through clear and convincing evidence. Mere conjecture or speculative inference cannot suffice to displace liability or diminish compensation. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute the rigor of proof required in such matters.

12. In this context, it becomes necessary to refer to the decision in Meera Devi and Another v. HRTC1 , where the Supreme Court, while addressing a comparable issue concerning contributory negligence, observed as follows:

2014 AIR SCW 1709 Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05

13. Applying the abovementioned judicial precedent to the case in hand, it is apparent that the Insurance Company's plea of contributory negligence is not backed by any prima facie cogent material. The claim rests on an unsubstantiated allegation that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and collided into the truck from behind. No contemporaneous evidence, medical report, or expert testimony has been placed on record to support such a contention. Moreover, the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency attributes culpability solely to the driver of the container truck, and the version of events has been corroborated by an independent eyewitness. In such a setting, the Tribunal's view that summoning documents from a third party insurer or a branch bank unrelated to the salary transactions would amount to a fishing inquiry cannot be said to be either arbitrary or in violation of principles of natural justice.

14. With regard to the summoning of bank records for the purpose of salary verification, the Tribunal rightly invoked the best evidence rule. Where primary evidence has already been adduced and remains unrebutted by credible contradiction, the invocation of secondary evidence becomes superfluous. Unless the authenticity of the primary documents is seriously impugned, resorting to further corroboration is unwarranted. This view was resonated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Jaswant Kaur2 , wherein it observed as follows:

15. Likewise, in the present case scenario, it is evident that the salary-

related documents furnished by the claimants, including appointment letters, monthly salary slips, Form 16, and corroborating oral testimony from the employer, constitute primary and best evidence within the meaning of Sections 61 and 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These documents have neither been impeached nor effectively contradicted by the petitioner during cross examination.

16. The Insurance Company continues to have the liberty to independently adduce evidence, if any, to establish contributory negligence. However, compelling third-party entities to produce documents in the absence of a clear foundational basis poses the risk of diverting the adjudication process from its core issues. Such an approach runs counter to the object of the Motor Vehicles Act , which envisions a swift and effective resolution of compensation claims.

17. In conclusion, the order passed by the MACT appears to be a proper exercise of its discretion, consistent with established legal principles. In the absence of any clear procedural irregularity or denial of a fair opportunity to be heard, there is little reason for this Court to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05

18. The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th May, 2025/ Page 10 of 10