Orissa High Court
Pitambar Pradhan & Anr vs The Divisional Manager on 11 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21218 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Pitambar Pradhan & Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
The Divisional Manager, New India .... Opposite Party (s)
Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. G. P. Dutta, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-25.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition concerns the withholding of a sum of
₹1,35,065/- from the total compensation awarded to the Petitioners in
MAC Case No. 155 of 2002 by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (MACT), (Northern Division), Sambalpur vide award dated
31st December, 2024, which had been confirmed in MACA No.780 of
2015 by this Court.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The deceased individuals, Muliram Pradhan and his son Tuku Pradhan,
tragically lost their lives in a road accident on 06.05.2001, while
travelling in a tempo bearing registration number OR-06-D-2140. The
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo
driver, resulting in a head-on collision with an incoming truck
(registration no. OR-05-E-6595).
(ii) Following the accident, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim
petition before the 2nd MACT, Sambalpur, which was later transferred
to the 1st MACT, Dhenkanal, and renumbered as MAC No. 155 of 2015,
seeking compensation for the untimely and wrongful deaths.
(iii) On 31.12.2014, the MACT allowed the claim petition and directed the
Opposite Party-Insurance Company to pay a sum of ₹5,45,800/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application,
i.e., 11.07.2002, until the date of realization.
(iv) This award was subsequently challenged by the Insurance Company in
MACA No. 780 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court on
05.01.2022, thereby affirming the Tribunal's award in its entirety.
(v) Following the dismissal of the appeal, the Insurance Company initially
issued a single cheque for ₹10,59,785/- in favour of all the claimants.
However, the Tribunal returned this cheque, directing the Company to
issue separate cheques to each claimant. While the cheques were drawn
on 14.09.2023, they were only deposited with the Tribunal on 16.10.2023,
resulting in an unexplained delay.
(vi) Based on their calculation, the petitioners submitted that the total
amount payable, including 6% interest from 11.07.2002 to 01.02.2023,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
stood at ₹11,94,850/-. However, only ₹10,59,785/- was paid by the
insurer, leaving a shortfall of ₹1,35,065/-, for which no justification or
legal explanation was provided.
(vii) Consequently, the petitioners approached the Tribunal on 05.02.2024,
seeking a direction to the Insurance Company to release the withheld
amount. Despite repeated representations, the application remains
pending without disposal.
(viii) In response, the Insurance Company has disputed the petitioners'
computation, asserting that the correct total compensation inclusive of
interest is ₹11,88,281/-, and not the higher figure claimed by the
petitioners.
(ix) Out of this amount, the Company states that ₹1,28,496/- was deducted
as TDS under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, since the interest
component exceeded ₹50,000/-, triggering mandatory tax deduction at
source. This, according to the Company, was done in strict compliance
with statutory requirements.
(x) Therefore, the Insurance Company maintains that the net amount of
₹10,59,785/-, after deducting TDS, has been duly deposited with the
Tribunal, and no further amount is outstanding. It does not dispute the
procedural history or the finality of the award, but contends that its
actions post-award are in accordance with prevailing tax laws and do
not amount to any violation of the Tribunal's or Court's directives.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S):
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The Petitioners contend that the Opposite Party Insurance Company
has arbitrarily and illegally withheld ₹1,35,065/-, without citing any
justification, in direct contravention of the orders passed by both the
MACT and the High Court.
(ii) It is submitted that the insurance company was not legally entitled to
make deductions from the awarded compensation amount without
prior permission or direction of the court or the tribunal. This act,
according to the Petitioners, amounts to a violation of the principles of
natural justice.
(iii) The Petitioners assert that the computation of interest on the awarded
sum was clear and straightforward, and any deviation from the total
amount payable constitutes non-compliance with the judicial directions.
(iv) The failure of the learned Tribunal to take up or decide the petition
dated 05.02.2024 despite repeated approaches by the Petitioners
amounts to denial of justice and delay in enforcing a valid and final
decree of the court.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY(S):
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party(s) earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Insurance Company strongly contends that it was legally bound to
deduct TDS on the interest component since it exceeded the threshold of
₹50,000, in accordance with Section 194A of the Income Tax Act.
Therefore, the alleged "shortfall" claimed by the petitioners is not an
arbitrary deduction but a statutory deduction.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) It is asserted that the Insurance Company, being a public sector
undertaking, operates within the framework of law and is duty-bound
to comply with statutory tax obligations. Any non-deduction of TDS
would attract consequences under the Income Tax Act.
(iii) The Opposite Party refutes the allegation that its actions violate the
directions of the MACT or the High Court. It reiterates that there was
no violation of judicial orders, as the entire due amount, after legitimate
statutory deductions, was deposited.
(iv) As a conciliatory gesture, the Opposite Party offers that if the
petitioners submit their PAN and Aadhaar card details, the Company
would be willing to revise the TDS return (TDR), thereby ensuring that
the deducted TDS reflects in the PAN accounts of the respective
claimants and is available for credit or refund through the Income Tax
Department.
(v) The Insurance Company maintains that the petitioners never objected
before the Tribunal about TDS, nor has the Tribunal found any violation
of orders by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the grievance raised
through this writ petition is unwarranted and ought to be rejected.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. An important facet of the Motor Vehicles Act lies in its character as a
piece of welfare legislation. It is not merely a statutory framework for
regulation of road transport or for enforcement of traffic norms. It is
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
equally an instrument of social justice designed to mitigate the hardship
and financial ruin that often follow in the wake of motor accidents. The
legislation serves as a remedial mechanism, particularly for those who
suffer loss of life or limb, or for dependents of persons who meet with
untimely deaths due to motor accidents. The guiding principle must,
therefore, be that where the statute seeks to alleviate hardship and offer
restitution, the approach must be purposive and liberal. The quantum
of compensation should be so determined as to ensure that the victim or
the bereaved family is able to preserve at least a semblance of the life
that has been disrupted.
7. This view has found affirmation in the decisions of the Supreme Court
as well as various High Courts in a series of authoritative
pronouncements. A notable illustration is the case of Concord of India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi1, wherein it was held as follows:
"The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents
must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and the
determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly
since the law values life and limb in a free country in
generous scales."(Emphasis supplied)
8. It is now a settled principle that the establishment of specialised
tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act is not merely a procedural
innovation but a deliberate departure from the rigidity of ordinary civil
litigation. The legislative design is animated by a conscious recognition
of the gap that often exists between legal formalism and the lived
realities of those who suffer personal tragedy due to road accidents. The
(1979) 4 SCC 365.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
object of the statute is not to entangle victims in the labyrinth of
procedural technicalities but to provide a forum where justice is
responsive, accessible, and effective. In this light, in one of its notable
pronouncements, the Gujarat High Court, while addressing this concern
in the case of Bai Damiyanti Jayantibhai Sharma v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd2., observed as under:
"The disposal of a claim petition for a fatal accident which
has taken place as back as 1984 after expiry of period of 10 to
11 years and further rigmarole of appeal to the higher
Courts and grant of stay of the judgment and award of
Tribunal in absolute terms requires immediate attention
and self-searching exercise. Every Judge worth his name
shall have to put a question to himself as to whether by
hearing and deciding the petition for compensation of
helpless widow, aged parents or helpless orphans or minor
children for the death of the only bread- earner of the family
after a period of one decade is in fact doing justice or it is
merely a promise of unreality or teasing illusion or a mirage
of justice, which keep or at times kill those helpless
dependents without a penny, in the fond hope that some day
in this life justice will be done to them. In the developed
countries, claim petitions which are tried by special Courts
are heard and decided within three months from the date of
the mishap or accident and the amount of compensation is
received directly from the insurance company or the person
responsible maximum within six months." (Emphasis
Supplied)
9. When the deceased happens to be the sole bread earner for a family, his
sudden demise is not just a personal loss but an economic catastrophe
for the survivors. The widow who struggles to make ends meet, the
elderly parents who are left without care, and the minor children who
(1996)2 GLR 418.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
are deprived of education and sustenance all stand before the law not as
claimants of monetary relief but as seekers of subsistence and dignity. If
this Court subjects such claimants to prolonged adjudication, where
procedural precision overshadows substantive justice, it is akin to allow
the law to lose sight of its moral purpose.
10. If this Court applies the established principles and the abovementioned
precedents to the case in hand, the delay in final disbursement of the
awarded compensation assumes significance far beyond a mere
computational dispute. The accident in question occurred in the year
2001. It has now been more than two decades since the unfortunate
demise of the deceased, who were father and son. Their surviving
family members, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, have since
then been caught in a prolonged cycle of litigation, administrative
delay, and procedural oversight. From the date of filing of the claim
application in 2002 to the present, we now stand in the year 2025; over
twenty-three years have elapsed.
11. It is not in dispute that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has already
passed an award, which has attained finality after dismissal of the
appeal by this Court. The only surviving issue concerns the balance
amount of ₹1,35,065/-, which the petitioners claim remains unpaid.
Whether this amount was withheld in accordance with law, specifically
as a statutory deduction under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, or
was withheld without legal sanction, is a matter that must be
determined by the Tribunal without further delay.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
V. CONCLUSION:
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and this Court directs the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhenkanal, to take up the
pending petition dated 05.02.2024 filed by the Petitioners and dispose of
the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th April, 2024/
