Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co vs Ashok Kumar Muduli And on 17 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.602 of 2024
Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Ashok Kumar Muduli and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1 to 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2025
I.A. No.1325 of 2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Perused the office note. Since notice has been
made sufficient against all the Respondents and nobody
has entered appearance, this Court is inclined to
condone the delay
3. I.A. stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
1. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned
// 2 //
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3-
Claimants.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.24.02.2024 so
passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT,
Puri in MAC Case No.67 of 2015. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.10,17,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization.
2.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.10,17,200/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Tractor
bearing Registration No. OR-13-H-3260 having its trolley
bearing Registration No.OR-13-H-3261 caused the
accident on 03.03.2014 and whether due to the rash
and negligent driving of the accused driver, accident
occurred, causing death of the deceased. It is contended
that even though such a plea was taken before the
Tribunal by the Appellant-Company, but the same was
never taken into consideration while assessing the
compensation at Rs.10,17,200/-.
2.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that the tribunal
committed wrong while awarding compensation amount
// 3 //
of Rs.80,000/- towards parental consortium instead of
Rs.40,000/- as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Bhagat
Singh Rawat and Others.
2.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-company contended that
had the Tribunal properly appreciated the stand of the
Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded would
have been on the lower side. It is accordingly contended
that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of
law and requires interference of this Court.
3. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 3
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 3
will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will
be reduced to Rs.9,00,000/-with interest @ 6% per
annum so awarded by the tribunal.
4. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents
Nos.1 to 3 to the discretion of this Court. However, it is
contended that right of recovery so allowed by the
tribunal be confirmed.
// 4 //
5. On the face of service of notice no appearance has
been made by Respondent No.4.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and after
going through the materials placed, this Court while
interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.24.02.2024
is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant-
Respondents Nos.1 to 3 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the application till its
realization. While holding so, this Court directs the
Appellant-Company to deposit the aforesaid
compensation amount along with interest within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. On such deposit of the amount, learned tribunal
shall do well to disburse the amount proportionately in
terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2024 in favour of the
Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 3. Right of recovery
allowed by the tribunal stands confirmed.
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.9,00,000/- shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from
the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till it is
deposited before the Tribunal.
// 5 //
6.2. Since this Court has confirmed the right of recovery
as against Respondent No.4, it is observed that if any
such application is moved by the Appellant to recover
the amount from the Owner-Respondent No.4, the
Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to Respondent No.4.
6.3. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount
as directed, appellant 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
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
