Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance vs Bipin Sahu & Others on 7 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1318 of 2024
Oriental Insurance .... Appellant
Company Ltd., Balangir Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Bipin Sahu & Others .... Respondents
Mr. J. Sahu, Adv.
(for Res. Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. K. Dang, Adv.
(for Res. NO.3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
07.04.2025
I.A. NO.3061 of 2024
Order No.
3. 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, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
4. The I.A stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Order No.4
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging the judgment dt.29.07.2024 so passed by the
learned 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum- M.A.C.T.(V), Balangir.
Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.16,44,000/- 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
@ 12% per annum, if the compensation so assessed is not
deposited within a period of two (2) months.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that since before the Tribunal a stand
was taken that the offending vehicle was not having any valid
permit and the same was never produced by the I.O or by the
owner/Respondent No.3, on the face of the finding given to
that effect, no right of recovery was allowed by the Tribunal.
It is accordingly contended that right of recovery be allowed
as against owner-Respondent NO.3. It is further contended
that default interest @ 12% per annum is not sustainable in
the eye of law as being in the higher side.
4. Mr Dang, learned counsel for the owner-Respondent NO.3
on the other hand contended that the vehicle was having
valid permit and if liberty be given, the same can be
produced.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
claimants/Respondents though contended that the award
has been rightly passed, but in course of hearing contended
that the claimants-respondents will be fully satisfied if this
Court will reduce the compensation amount to
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
With regard to award of default interest, @12% per annum,
it is contended that this Court can pass appropriate order.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-company left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-respondents to the discretion of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined to waive
out the default interest levied @ 12% per annum and reduce
the compensation amount to Rs.15,00,000/- with interest
@6% per annum payable from the date of application till its
realization. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant-
Company to deposit compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @6% per annum payable
from the date of application till its realisation within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. This Court however allows right of recovery as against
owner-respondent No.3
7.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount,
the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of
the Claimants-Respondents Nos.1& 2 proportionately in
terms of the judgment dt.29.07.2024.
7.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company
will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the time
stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum
payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight)
weeks till it is so deposited.
7.3. It is further observed that in the event of any
application being filed by the Appellant-Company seeking
recovery of the amount from the Respondent-Owner No.3,
the Tribunal shall give due opportunity of hearing to the
Respondent-Owner in that regard and decide the same in
accordance with law, in which this court expresses no
opinion.
7.4. It is observed that Account Payee Cheque so
deposited by the appellant company and not yet invested be
returned back after satisfaction of the award.
7.5. The MACA accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 08-Apr-2025 16:50:33
