National Insurance Co vs Lalita Sandh And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7245 Ori

Orissa High Court

National Insurance Co vs Lalita Sandh And Others on 17 April, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          MACA No.728 of 2024
        National Insurance Co.
        Ltd.
                                          ....                 Appellant
                                          Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, Advocate


                               -versus-
        Lalita Sandh and Others
                                  ....                          Respondents
                                           Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate for R-1 to 3
                                                                            \




                             CORAM:
                  JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                          ORDER

17.04.2025 I.A. No.1640 of 2024 Order No.

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.700/- to be paid before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 23.04.2025.

4. I.A. stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

P.T.O. // 2 //

1. Heard Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3-Claimants. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.4 in spite of due appearance.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Company challenging Judgment dtd.30.01.2024 so passed by the learned 1st MACT, Balangir in MAC Case No.26 of 2018. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.8,31,367/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. Learned Tribunal also allowed default interest @ 12% per annum.

2.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that while assessing the compensation at Rs.8,31,367/-, the Tribunal never take into consideration as to whether the offending Bolero bearing Registration No. OD-35-4466 caused the accident on 20.02.2018 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.8,31,367/-.

// 3 //

2.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-company further contended that the claim application was filed on the ground of death of deceased while under treatment in VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. But since Post Mortem of the deceased was never conducted, the same creates serious doubts as to whether the deceased died due to such road accident caused by the offending vehicle. It is also contended that consortium allowed @ Rs.40,000/- each is on the higher side.

2.3. It is also contended that since no charge-sheet was filed for the offence U/s.304-A of the IPC, it is to be held that the deceased did not die due to the road accident. It is also contended that even though a plea was taken by the company that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, but no right of recovery was allowed. It is also contended that default interest allowed @ 12% per annum is on the higher side and it has been levied without any reason or basis.

2.4. 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

// 4 //

law and requires interference of this Court. It is also contended that default interest @ 12% per annum be waived out, by allowing right of recovery as against owner-Respondent No.4.

3. Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for private Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand contended that no fault can be found with regard to the non-conduct of the Post Mortem by the Medical Authority as P.W. 2. Superintendent of VSS Medical College and Hospital in his evidence clearly admitted that no reason has been assigned as to why the Post Mortem of the deceased was not conducted. It is accordingly contended that since for the latches on the part of the Medical Authority, Post Mortem was not conducted, no fault can be found on the claimants for such latches on the part of the Medical Authority.

3.1. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 further contended that the deceased since died in a road accident, the tribunal by taking him as an unskilled worker calculated the compensation rightly. However, 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.7,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum so awarded by the tribunal. But with regard to award of default interest @ 12% per annum, learned counsel appearing for

// 5 //

Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 3 contended that this Court may pass appropriate order in that regard.

4. Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, 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.

5. 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.30.01.2024 is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant- Respondents Nos.1 to 3 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the application till its realization. However, this Court is inclined to quash the award of default interest @ 12% per annum, so allowed by the Tribunal. 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 30.01.2024 in favour of the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 3. This Court however allows right of recovery as against Respondent No.4 as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger.