NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. DASIAN BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.1993 passed in M.A. No. 323 of 1986 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by a single word 'dismissed ' without giving any reasons against the award of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal ') dated 14.5.1986.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that a claim petition bearing Misc. Case No. 120 of 1984 was filed before the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1939 ') by the Respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be the dependant of one Sradhakar Behera, who died in the accident on 23.2.1984 on Barkot - Pallahara road near Kala bridge while transporting the goods from Khandam to Naktideul in the vehicle bearing registration No. ORS 4246 of which Respondent No. 2 was the registered owner. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company, the present Appellant, as well as by the insured on various grounds. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle unauthorisedly as a passenger for hire and it was not permissible in a goods vehicle. The claim petition was allowed directing the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,750/ - with interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of application i.e. 27.10.1984 till payment. The amount had been directed to be paid by the insurer.

(3.) MS . Arundhati Ghosh learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that it was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to decide the appeal without giving any reason whatsoever. The appeal has to be disposed of by giving reasons. More so, as the finding of fact had been recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling as a passenger or as an agent of the owner of the goods, his traveling in the goods vehicle was not in consonance with the agreement incorporated in the policy issued by the insurer to Respondent No. 2 -owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability of compensation.