Surya Chetidora vs Ramdhar Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6849 Ori

Orissa High Court

Surya Chetidora vs Ramdhar Singh on 8 April, 2025

Author: Savitri Ratho

Bench: Savitri Ratho

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      MACA No. 67 of 2020

            1. Surya Chetidora
            2. Sabitri Chetidora                        ....            Appellant
                                                             Mr. A. Panda, Advocate
                                               on behalf of S. K. Pattjoshi, Advocate

                                               -Versus-
            1. Ramdhar Singh
            2. The Divisional Manager, Bajaj
            Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....            Respondents
                                                Mr. Anupam Dash , Advocate

                CORAM:
                     JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                             ORDER

08.04.2025 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)

07. I.A. No. 858 of 2025

1. This I.A. has been filed by the Respondents No.2 (Insurance

Company) for modification/clarification of the order dated

08.03.2025 as the right of recovery which has been granted by the

learned Tribunal and had been confirmed during the Lok Adalat is not

reflected in the order.

2. Mr. Anupam Dash, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2

submits that when the matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat, prayer

had been made to keep the 'right of recovery' intact but the same is

not reflected in the order.

3. Mr. A. Panda, learned counsel is present on behalf of Mr. A. K.

Pattajoshi, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant. He does not

dispute the submission of Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

4. Perused the judgment dated 04.11.2019 passed in M.A.C. Case

No. 17 of 2015(T) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-

Member, 4th M.A.C.T., Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna and the memo of

compromise.

5. From Paragraph-9 and order portion of the judgment dated

04.11.2019 it is apparent that right of recovery has been granted to the

Insurance Company. But there is no mention in the compromise

memo about the right of recovery.

6. But as there is no reason to interfere with the right of recovery

granted by the learned Tribunal, it is clarified that the right of

recovery is confirmed.

7. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of with the above clarification.

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Subhalaxmi

Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication

Date: 10-Apr-2025 19:34:01