Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Unknown on 20 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.628 OF 2016
From the Judgment / Order dated 23.4.2016 passed by the
learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T, Nayagarh in M.A.C
Case No.58 of 2008.
Divisional Manager, ICICI
Lombard G.I.Co. Ltd :::: Appellant.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Puspalata Patnaik & Others :::: Respondents.
Appeared in this case by Video Conferencing Mode /
Hybrid Mode.
For Appellant :::: Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
For Respondents :::: Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
(For Respondent Nos.2,4 & 5)
.........
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.SATAPATHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing- 13.04.2022:: Date of Judgment-.20.04.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
B.P.Satapathy, J. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel
for the appellant, Mr.A.K. Jena, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1 and Mr. S.K.
Bhanjadeo, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.2,4 & 5.
// 2 //
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-
company challenging the judgment dated 23.4.2016
passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T,
Nayagarh in MAC No.58 of 2008.
3. This appeal arising out of an incident which
took place on 2.10.2007 has a chequered history.
Initially learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.5.2011
when disposed of the matter with a direction to the
appellant-company to pay compensation of
Rs.19,29,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the
said award was challenged by the appellant-company
and by Respondent No.1 in MACA NO.521 of 2011 and
181 of 2012 respectively.
4. This Court vide a common order passed on
11.9.2015, set aside the said award dated 17.5.2011
and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal for
fresh disposal. After such remand of the matter,
learned Tribunal vide its order dated 23.4.2016
enhanced the compensation by directing the appellant-
company to pay compensation of Rs.24,87,760/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable from the date
of application till its realization. Learned Tribunal vide
the said judgment while allowed 30% of the award
amount in favour of the respondent No.1-wife, an
amount of 40% was allowed in favour of Respondent
No.2 who was the minor son of the deceased.
Learned Tribunal allowed 30% of the award amount
// 3 //
jointly in favour of Respondent Nos.4 & 5- parents of
the deceased.
5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-company while challenging the award dated
23.4.2016 submitted that learned Tribunal though
relying on the Income Tax return of the deceased,
assessed the compensation by holding the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.35,081/- but the said
Income Tax Return submitted before the learned
Tribunal was not duly signed by the assessee- deceased
and the same could not have been taken into
consideration for arriving at the monthly income of the
deceased. Mr. Khan also submitted that even though
violation of the policy condition was urged before the
learned Tribunal but while allowing the compensation,
no right or recovery was passed in favour of the
appellant-company. Mr. Khan accordingly prayed for
interference of this Court in the impugned award.
6. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1 brought to the notice of this Court by
the cross-examination filed by the said respondent
wherein a prayer has been made to allow major portion
of the award instead of 30%, so allowed by the learned
Tribunal, as the Respondent No.1 is the wife of the
deceased.
7. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 argued that similar prayer
made by the respondent No.1 for allowing more share
// 4 //
over and above the 30% allowed by the learned
Tribunal was the subject matter in MACA No.1105 of
2017 filed by the Respondent No.1. This Court vide
order dated10.1.2022 dismissed the said appeal and
the said order has attained finality in the eye of law.
Mr. Bhanjadeo accordingly prayed that since similar
claim made by the Respondent No.1 in MACA No.1105
of 2017 was rejected by this Court, the prayer made in
her cross-objection was also liable to be rejected by this
Court.
8. At this point of time, Mr. Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of this
Court an order passed by the learned Tribunal on
21.1.2011. Learned Tribunal in the said order while
considering the stand of the appellant-company that
the permit of the offending vehicle was not in the
record. Learned Tribunal relying on a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if violation of policy
condition is alleged, the Insurance Company is to
satisfy the claim arising out of the policy and it can
proceed against the insurer for recovery of the
compensation amount to be paid by the insurer. Mr.
Khan, also urged that the learned Tribunal while
assessing the compensation at Rs.24,87,760/- has
allowed interest @7.5% per annum which is on the
higher side. It is also argued that at the relevant point
of time, prevailing interest rate cannot be @7.5% per
annum.
// 5 //
09. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at
length, and in view of the stand taken by the appellant-
company vis-a-vis Respondent No.1,2,4 & 5, this Court
while interfering with the impugned judgment when
came to a conclusion that Respndent No.1,2,4 & 5 are
entitled to get compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- with
interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of
application till its realization. Mr. Jena, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondnet No.1 and Mr. Bhanjadeo,
learned counsel appearing Respondent NOs.2,4 & 5
supported the said vidw of this Court.
10. Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-comapny left the aforesaid view to the
discretion of this Court.
11. Taking into consideration such stand of the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,
this Court directs the appellant-company to pay
compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- (Twenty two lakhs)
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of application till its realization with right of
recovery against the Respondent No.3.
12. This Court directs the appellant-company to
deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with
interest, as assessed by this Court, within a period of
eight weeks from today before the learned Tribunal. It
is directed that on such deposit of the compensation
amount along with interest so assessed by this Court
before the learned Tribunal, learned Tribunal shall
// 6 //
disburse the same proportionately and in terms of the
judgment dated 23.4.2016.
13. Since the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 in
MACA No.1105 of 2017 was dismissed by this Court,
the cross-objection filed by the said Respondent No.1
seeking half portion of the award is not maintainable
and accordingly the same is also rejected.
14. It is also observed that only after deposit of the
compensation amount along with interest before the
learned Tribunal, so assessed by this Court, within a
period of eight weeks, the appellant-company shall be
permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along
with accrued interest from the Registry of this Court on
proper identification.
15. The MACA is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 20TH April, 2022/sangita
