Orissa High Court
Authorised Signatories Oriental vs Bidulata Baliarsingh & Anr on 1 October, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.286 of 2024
Authorised Signatories Oriental ..... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Bidulata Baliarsingh & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. S. Nanda, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.10.2024
Order No.03 I.A. No. 798 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
4. I.A. is disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
04. MACA No. 286 of 2024
1. Heard Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.07.11.2023 so passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge-
cum- 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No. 405/2011. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.8,26,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The
Tribunal also awarded default interest @ 8%, if the compensation so
assessed is not deposited within a period of one (1) month.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal never take into
consideration the stand of the Appellant that due to negligence of
the rider of the motor cycle, who was driving the motor cycle
without any valid D.L., the accident in question occurred. It is also
contended that since the deceased was having the learneer's licence
and the pillion driver had no driving licence, the claim application
could not have been entertained.
3.1. It is also contended that since the Owner-Respondent No. 2
never appeared before the Tribunal and was set ex parte, in view of
the fact that the rider of the motor cycle was not having any driving
licence, the Tribunal should have allowed the right of recovery as
against the Owner-Respondent.
3.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel apparing for the
Appellant-Company contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated the aforesaid contentions so raised by the Appellant, the
compensation amount would have been on the lower side. It is
further contended that award of default interest @ 8% per annum is
also not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended
that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and
needs interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent supported the impugned Judgment, but in
course of hearing contended that the Claimant-Respondent will be
fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation to the tune
of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. With
regard to award of 8% default interest, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent-Claimant contended that this Court can pass
appropriate order in that regard.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent to the discretion of this Court, contended that
right of recovery be allowed as against Onwer-Respondent No. 2 as
the Owner-Respondent No. 2 never contested the matter and was set
ex-parte by the Tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while waiving out the
default interest levied @ 8% per annum, is inclined to reduce the
compensation amount to Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing the application till its
realization. This Court is also inclined to allow right of recovery as
agaisnt Owner-Respondent No. 2. This Court accordingly while
holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation
amount of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent in
terms of the Judgment passed on 07.11.2023.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not
be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time
period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of
Rs.7,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the
period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till
its payment.
6.2. It is also observed that if any such application is moved by the
Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No. 2,
the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.2 - Owner.
6.3. It is further observed that since the statutory deposit has not
been invested, the cheque be returned back to the learned counsel
for the Appellant after satisfaction of the award.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
