Manager vs Madhu Mali & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6587 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manager vs Madhu Mali & Others on 3 April, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        MACA No.651 of 2023
        Manager, United India            ....                        Appellant
        Insurance Co., Ltd.
                                                      Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate

                                      -versus-
        Madhu Mali & Others
                                         ....                    Respondents
                                            Ms. S. Soren, Adv. for Resp. Nos.1
                                           Mr. A. A. Khan, Adv. for Resp. No.6
                                           Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv.for Resp. No.5


                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                        ORDER

02.04.2025

I.A. No.1665 of 2023 Order No.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A., the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 04.04.2025.

4. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge // 2 //

05. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Malkangiri vide judgment dtd.29.06.2022 in MAC Case No.08 of 2016.

3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the claim application was originally filed by the claimant/respondent by impleading the present Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3.

4. It is contended that claim made against Respondent No.6/Opposite Party No.3 in the claim application, was disposed of on compromise in the Lok Adalat vide order dtd.09.03.2019. As per the compromise so effected, Respondent No.6 agreed to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1.

4.1. It is contended that once the matter was disposed of by the Lok Adalat on compromise by holding Respondent No.6 liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, as per the compromise effected in between Respondent No.6 and the claimants, there was no occasion on the part of the Tribunal to proceed

// 3 //

further in the matter, with passing of the impugned judgment, by holding the appellant liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,61,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of application till its realization.

4.2. It is contended that since in the claim application so filed by the Claimant-Respondent, the appellant was never impleaded as a party to the proceeding and basing on the available materials, the matter was compromised in between the claimant-Respondent and Respondent No.6, with passing of a compromise order on 09.03.2019 in the Lok Adalat, the subsequent impugned order passed by holding the appellant liable vide the impugned judgment dtd.29.06.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 on behalf of Ms. S. Soren, learned counsel, on the other hand contended that vide order dtd.09.03.2019, the matter was disposed of partly by the Tribunal basing on a compromise effected in between the Claimant/Respondent and Respondent No.6/Opposite Party No.3 in the claim application.

5.1. It is contended that in the Lok Adalat held on 09.03.2019, the matter was compromised in between the claimant/respondent and Respondent No.6, as the Respondent No.6 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-

// 4 //

towards compensation. (Copy of the entire order passed on 09.03.2019, so produced in Court be kept in record).

5.2. It is also contended that since the accident in question took place due to the involvement of two vehicles, which are insured with Respondent No.8 and the appellant, after disposal of the claim as against Respondent No.6, the Tribunal allowed the claimant- Respondents to implead the appellant as Opposite Party No.4 vide order dtd.06.08.2019. After being allowed to be impleaded as Opposite Party No.4 in the claim application, the matter was finally disposed vide the impugned judgment dtd. 29.06.2022 under Annexure-1.

5.3. It is contended that since the matter was partly compromised in between the claimants/Respondents and Respondent No.6 / Opposite Party No.3, the Tribunal allowed the claimant / respondent to proceed against the appellant vide order dtd.06.08.2019 and the same was disposed of by giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as claimant- Respondent. It is accordingly contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the appellant after being impleaded as Opposite Party No.4 in the claim application, the appellant participated in the proceeding without raising any objection.

// 5 //

6. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 on the other hand contended that since the matter was compromised in between the Claimant/Respondent and Respondent No.6 in the Lok Adalat and as per the terms of compromise, compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited before the Tribunal, Respondent No.6 is not liable to pay any further amount and the Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the appellant.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claim application in MAC Case No.9 of 2016 was initially filed by the claimant-respondent by impleading Respondent No.6 as Opposite Party No.3 and Orissa State Road Transport Corporation as Opposite Party No.1-Respondent No.5 in the present appeal.

7.1. It is found that in the Lok Adalat held on 09.03.2019, claim made against Respondent No.6 was compromised and as per the terms of compromise, Respondent No.6 agreed to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-. As found from the record, the same has been deposited before the Tribunal by Respondent No.6.

7.2. However, after disposal of the matter in the Lok Adalat. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter by

// 6 //

allowing the claimants to implead the appellant as a party to the proceeding vide order dtd.06.08.2019 and the appellant was arrayed as Opposite Party No.4 in the claim application. Thereafter the impugned judgment was passed by holding the appellant liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,61,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of application till its realization vide the impugned judgment dtd.29.06.2022.

7.3. As per the considered view of this Court, if the accident occurred due to involvement of two vehicles, the appellant prior to being impleaded as party to the claim application, the matter could not have been allowed to be settled in between the Claimant/Respondent and Respondent No.6 by way of compromise. It is the view of this Court that the Tribunal committed a wrong by allowing the compromise to be effected in between Claimant/Respondent and Respondent No.6 in the Lok Adalat held on 09.03.2019 and thereafter allowing the claimant to implead the appellant as a party to the proceeding.

7.4. However, since in terms of the order passed in the Lok Adalat, Respondent No.6 has already deposited the compromise amount of Rs.50,000/-, this Court while not interfering with the order passed in the Lok Adalat, is inclined to quash the impugned judgment

// 7 //

dtd.29.06.2022. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Tribunal to take up the issue afresh and decide the liability of the appellant as well as Respondent No.6. The Tribunal is directed to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant, claimant-Respondent as well as Respondent No.6, Respondent No.5 and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and decide the liability accordingly in accordance with the law.

7.5. However, payment of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- by Respondent No.6 be adjusted, if Respondent No.6 is held liable to pay compensation amount in excess Rs.50,000/-. It is also observed that claimants/respondents will not be held entitled to get any interest on the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Parties to the proceeding also be permitted to lead any further oral or documentary evidence in support of tier respective stand.

8. Statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the appellant on proper identification.

9. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of.

                                                         (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
                                                                   Judge

Digitally Signed        Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 11:06:18