Orissa High Court
D.M vs Amar Singh & Anr on 16 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.703 of 2019
D.M., The Oriental Insurance ..... Appellant
Co. Ltd. Mr. M.C. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Amar Singh & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
Mr. T.K. Biswal, Advocate
(Respondent No. 2)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.04.2025
Order No.06 I.A. No. 137 of 2020
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is
condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1500/- to be paid before
the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 25th April,
2025.
4. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Heard Mr. M.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 and Mr. T.K. Biswal, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.29.01.2019 so passed by the learned 3rd
MACT, Jajpur in MAC Case No. 27 of 2015. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.2,26,000/-
along with interest @ 6% 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, wrongly held that the accused driver had the valid
driving licence at the time of accident. But since the offending
vehicle was running on public road without having any valid licence
at the time of accident, the same amounts to violation of the policy
condition and the Appellant would have been exonerated from the
liability.
3.1. It is also contended that in absence of any disability certificate
being produced by the Claimants, no compensation should have
been awarded towards loss of future income. Making all these
submissions learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended
that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the stand taken by the
Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded should have been
on the lower side. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
award needs interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent No. 1 supported the impugned award, but in
course of hearing contended that Claimant-Respondent No. 1 will be
fully satisfied, if the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
5. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel
for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 to the discretion of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.29.01.2019, held the Claimant-
Respondent No. 1 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- 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.2,00,000/- 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 in full in terms of the Judgment passed on
29.01.2019.
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.2,00,000/- 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. On such deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-
Company will be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit
along with accrued interest if any from the Registry on proper
identification
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Prashant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 21-Apr-2025 19:53:26
