Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Dambarudhar Naik & Ors on 17 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.998 of 2024
The Divisional Manager, ..... Appellant
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Dambarudhar Naik & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2025
Order No.06
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent No. 5, notice against Respondent No. 5 is treated as
sufficient.
3. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.18.05.2024 so passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge-cum-III MACT, Dhenkanal in MAC Case No. 129 of
2017. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.10,86,027/- along with interest @ 7% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization. The Tribunal also awarded default interest @ 9%, if the
compensation so assessed is not deposited within the stipulated time
period.
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that even though a specific stand
was taken that the deceased died due to electrocution and because of
the fault committed by the authorities of OPTCL in not taking
precaution with regard to taking of 11 KV line, but the same was not
appreciated by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation.
5.1. It is also contended that taking into account the fact that the
deceased died due to such electrocution and accordingly received a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from OPTCL, but the said
payment of compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was not adjusted
while awarding the compensation in favour of the Claimants-
Respondents.
5.2. It is also contended that the Appellant though took a specific
stand that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid
D.L. nor the offending vehicle was having valid route permit, but on
the face of such plea being taken, no right of recovery was allowed
while holding the Appellants liable to pay the compensation. It is
accordingly contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated
the contention raised with regard to death of the deceased due to
electrocution and adjustment of Rs.5,00,000/- so paid by the
Corporation to the deceased, the compensation amount should have
been assessed at a lesser side with right of recovery being allowed as
against the Owner-Respondent No. 5.
5.3. It is also contended that award of interest @ 7% per annum on
the compensation amount with levy of default interest @ 9% per
annum is on the higher side. Making all these submissions, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant prays for interference of this
Court with the award so passed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents does
not dispute the receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from
OPTCL and fairly contended that the said amount be deducted from
the assessed compensation so made by the Tribunal.
6.1. It is also contended that by adjusting the aforesaid amount of
compensation received by the deceased to the extent of
Rs.5,00,000/-, if this Court will reduce the compensation to
Rs.5,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the application till its realization, Claimants-
Respondents will have no grievance. With regard to award of 9%
default interest, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-
Claimants contended that this Court can pass appropriate order in
that regard.
7. Since in spite of service of notice, no appearance has been made
by the Owner-Respondent No. 5, this Court has no occasion to know
as to whether the offending vehicle was having valid route permit
and whether the accused driver was having valid D.L..
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to the discretion of this Court,
contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-
Respondent No. 5.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while waiving out the
default interest levied @ 9% per annum, is inclined to held the
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.5,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realization. This Court
however allows right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No.
5. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,25,000/-along with
interest @ 6% interest per annum payable from the date of filing of
the claim application till its realization before the Tribunal within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
9.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the
compensation amount of Rs.5,25,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
9.2. Since this Court has allowed right of recovery it is observed that
if any application will be filed by the Appellant seeking recovery of
the compensation from Owner/Respondent No. 5, the same be
considered and disposed of in accordance with law and by giving
due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 5.
9.3. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be
permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest, if any from the Registry on proper identification.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Digitally Signed Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Apr-2025 11:30:20
