Divisional Manager vs Dhruba Charan
2024 Latest Caselaw 16311 Ori

Orissa High Court

Divisional Manager vs Dhruba Charan on 6 November, 2024

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             MACA No.459 of 2020

        Divisional Manager,
        Oriental Insurance Co.
        Ltd.                                   ....                   Appellant
                                              Ms. S. Das, Advocate on behalf of
                                                   Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate

                                             -versus-

        Dhruba Charan
        Moharana and Others                     ....                Respondents


                             CORAM:
                  JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                               ORDER

06.11.2024 I.A. No.2485 of 2024 Order No.

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Ms. S. Das, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant- Company.

3. This application has been filed seeking modification of order dated 25.09.2024 with the following prayer:-

"Therefore, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing to modify the Order dt.25.09.2024 passed in M.A.C.A. No.459 of 2020 by this Hon'ble Court confirming the liberty in favour of the petitioner-appellant to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

// 2 //

And this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper under the aforesaid premises."

4. It is contended that the Tribunal while disposing the matter vide judgment dated 18.10.2019 though came to a finding that the offending vehicle was having no permit and appellant-company is eligible to recover the compensation so awarded but while disposing the matter, no order was passed to that effect.

4.1. It is contended that in view of the finding available in the judgment, the Appellant-Company should have been allowed right of recovery as against owner- respondent. It is accordingly contended that liberty be given to the Appellant-company to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal to held the owner- respondent liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant-company in the shape of right of recovery.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant- company, this Court grants the liberty as prayed for.

6. I.A. is disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature NotBasudev Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2024 17:33:17