Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co vs Lilima Kua & Others on 7 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.924 of 2024
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., ..... Appellant
Balasore Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Lilima Kua & Others ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent No.1 to 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
07.04.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Memo
containing the D.L. of the driver of the offending vehicle produced
in Court be kept in record.
3. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
dtd.20.04.2024 so passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-
cum-4th MACT, Sambalpur in M.A.C Case No. 43/40 of 2016-21.
Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.15,68,420/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that without having any material being
produced, the daily income of the deceased was calculated at
Rs.280/- per day though at the relevant point of time, the wages of
an unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act was Rs.200/-
per day.
4.1. It is also contended that instead of allowing 25% towards future
prospectus, 30% of the income was calculated towards future
prospect.
4.2. It is also contended that even though the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having the required licence to drive hazardous
vehicle, the driver since driving an Oil Tanker, right of recovery
should have been allowed. Appellant in support of such submission
relied on the D.L. of the accused driver produced in Court today.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated the aforesaid contention so raised, the compensation
amount would have been assessed at a lower side.
4.4. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing 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
accordingly contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in
the eye of law and needs interference of this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent No.6 on the
other hand contended that the driver was having the required licence
and the factum that he was not having the licence to drive hazardous
vehicle was not within the knowledge of the owner. It is
accordingly contended that unless and until it is proved that
Respondent No.6 having knowledge of the fact that the driver was
not having valid DL to drive hazardous vehicle allowed him to drive
the vehicle, no right of recovery can be allowed.
6. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 4 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.12,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
7. 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 Owner-Respondent as the
driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence
to drive hazardous vehicle.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while is inclined to
reduce the compensation amount to Rs.12,50,000/- 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 against Owner-Respondent No.6. This Court
accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to
deposit compensation amount of Rs.12,50,000/- 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 20.04.2024.
8.1. 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.12,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the
period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till
its payment.
8.2. It is also observed that if any such application is moved by the
Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No.6,
the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent- Owner. The Tribunal shall also look into the fact that
owner / respondent No.6 allowed the driver to drive the offending
vehicle even if he was aware of the fact that the driver was not
having valid D.L to drive hazardous vehicle.
8.3. It is further observed that since the statutory deposit has not yet
been invested, the Account Payee Cheque so deposited be returned
back to the learned counsel for the Appellant after satisfaction of the
award in proper identification.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 09-Apr-2025 17:37:13
