Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Girish Khatua & Anr on 3 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.647 of 2020
Divisional Manager, M/s. ..... Appellant
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Girish Khatua & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
03.04.2025
Order No. 13 I.A. No. 3002 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. This I.A. has been filed seeking modification of order
dtd.03.10.2024.
4. Considering the grounds taken, order dtd.03.10.2024 is hereby
recalled.
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company, Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing
for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.25.11.2019 so passed by the learned District
Judgecum-1st MACT, Angul in MAC Case No. 86 of 2016. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.60,487/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation, never take into consideration the fact that the
deceased died due to his own negligence.
3.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the materials placed, while wrongly assessed the
compensation at Rs.60,487/-, also allowed interest @ 7% per
annum, which is on the higher side. It is also contended that even
though the Tribunal came to a conclusion that Appellant is entitled
to recover the compensation from the Owner-Respondent No. 2, but
right of recovery as against Respondent No.2-Owner was not
allowed. Not only that Owner-Respondent No. 2 was also set
exparte before the tribunal.
3.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated/assessed the compensation amount so awarded should
have been on the lower side. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires
interference of this Court.
4. Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-
Respondent No.1 not only supported the impugned award, but also
contended that the award need enhancement as the Tribunal in
absence of any rebuttal evidence held the income of the injured at
Rs.6000/- per month in place of Rs.8000/-. However, in course of
hearing contended that Claimant-Respondent No.1 will have no
grievance, if the compensation amount will be enhanced to
Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 to the discretion of this Court, contended
that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No.
2.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.25.11.2019, allows right of recovery
against Owner-Respondent No. 2 and held the Claimant-Respondent
No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization. This Court accordingly while
holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation
amount of Rs.90,000/- 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 No.1 proportionately in
terms of the Judgment passed on 25.11.2019.
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.90,000/-
shall carry interest @ 7% per annum 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.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
