The Divisional Manager vs Jatiranjan Mohapatra And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 12792 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   FAO No.513 of 2020
            The Divisional Manager, M/s.The New ....             Appellant
            India Assurance Company Ltd.
                                                Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            Jatiranjan Mohapatra and another       ....       Respondents
                        Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate for Respondent No.1

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

13.12.2021 Order No.

04. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company as well as Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No.1.

2. The present appeal filed by the insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.C. Case No. 1166-D/1998 by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack wherein the claimant was granted compensation of Rs.4,93,109/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained in the accident in course of his employment.

3. It is contended by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company that the claimant after the accident has renewed his driving license in the year 2002 and as such, the loss of future income on account of sustenance of permanent disability to the extent of 60% is disproved on record and the compensation

granted by the learned Commissioner on that count is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by Mr. Khan that though the claim application was filed in the year 1998, it was dismissed for default in the year 2006 for laches on the part of the claimant. The same was restored in 2015 only on the application filed by the claimant, which was finally disposed of on 8.1.2020 by the impugned award. But, the learned Commissioner has granted interest on the compensation amount for the entire period of pendency of the claim application.

4. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent No.1 submits that the claimant has filed restoration application immediately after dismissal of the claim application. But unfortunately, the notice could only be issued in the year 2015 without any fault on the part of the claimant. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Commissioner in granting interest for the entire period. It is also submitted that the renewal of driving license by the claimant after the accident was not pleaded by the insurer in their W.S. and as such ,the same cannot be raised at this stage.

5. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of the impugned award, it is seen at page 6 that, under Issue No.3 the learned Commissioner has considered such submission of the parties and also recorded the reply of the claimant. Perusal of the same reveals that the plea of the insurer about renewal of the driving license by the claimant is not denied by the claimant that

he has renewed the driving license with hope to drive the vehicle in future if he is cured.

6. Rule 5 read with Rule 18 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes that unless the person above the age of 40 years is physically fit without any disability, his driving license cannot be renewed further. Having considered those relevant provisions under the said Rules, and when it is admitted that the claimant has renewed his license after the accident, then the disability claimed on the part of the claimant is definitely falsified. As such, it is otherwise established that the claimant is free from any permanent disability. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation for loss of future income on account of his disability sustained in the alleged accident.

7. The other aspect of the argument that the insurer was not at fault for pendency of the claim application from 2006 to 2015 is also justified taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the claim application was dismissed in the year 2006 and the notice of such restoration was only received by the insurer in the year 2015.

8. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant as described in the impugned award and the loss of income during the period of treatment in SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack or upto the year 2002, and considering other aspects as discussed above, in my opinion, a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) would justify the requirement.

9. Accordingly, the compensation amount is modified to the above extent and the Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay consolidated compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) to the claimant.

10. Since the entire award amount has been deposited before the learned Commissioner, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with proportionate accrued interest be disbursed in favour of the claimant within a period of eight weeks from today and the balance amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company within the same period on proper application.

11. With the aforesaid modification of the award, the FAO is disposed of.

12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik