Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Manjari Mallik And Another on 12 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.690 of 2020
Divisional Manager, New India .... Appellant
Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. G.C. Samantaray, Advocate
-versus-
Manjari Mallik and another .... Respondents
Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
12.04.2022
Order No.
07. 1. Heard Mr. G.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned counsel
for the Respondent No.1-claimant.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
and award dated 22.1.2020 passed in E.C. Case No.27/2014 by
the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-
Divisional Labour Commissioner, Dhenkanal wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,33,820/- along with interest has
been granted to the claimant-Respondent No.1 on account of
death of the deceased in course of and arising out of the
employment as driver in the Truck bearing Registration No.ORY-
5376.
3. Mr. Samantaray submits for the Appellant-Insurance Company
that without granting any opportunity of hearing to the insurer he
has been set ex-parte and the impugned award has been passed. It
is further submitted that no driving license on behalf of the
deceased has been produced on record to establish that he was, in
fact, the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Mr. Nandy, learned counsel on behalf of the claimant-
Respondent No.1 submits in reply that the order setting the
insurer as ex-parte by the Commissioner is neither questioned in
the present appeal nor in any earlier proceeding. Despite he was
set ex-parte by order dated 20.7.2018, still they did not question
the same till passing of the impugned award on 22.1.2020.
5. It reveals from the certified copy of the order in E.C. Case
No.27/2014 of the Commissioner that several dates were been
fixed in course of the proceeding after the Appellant was set ex-
parte and no step was taken by the Appellant to set aside that
order of ex-parte till the award was passed.
6. Looking to the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the
memorandum of appeal, nowhere the order setting the Appellant
as ex-parte has been questioned. The challenges are mainly on the
merit of the award. Thus in absence of any challenge to the order
dated 20.7.2018 setting the Appellant as ex-parte, the present
contention raised by the Appellant regarding the same is not
entertainable.
7. Coming to the grounds on merit of the appeal as advanced by
the Appellant, their main contention is to the effect that since no
driving license of the deceased was produced on record, his
employment as driver of the offending vehicle on the date of
accident is not established, for which no compensation can be
granted. This contention of the Appellant is rejected for the
reason that nowhere they have said in the appeal memo that the
deceased was not the driver of the vehicle in question or he was
not authorized to drive the vehicle in question.
8. Admittedly nothing has been questioned with regard to income
of the deceased and his employment under the owner. Therefore,
no merit is seen in the appeal to interfere with the impugned
award.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
