Orissa High Court
D.M vs Krishna Charan Choudhury & on 17 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.607 of 2022
D.M., Oriental Insurance ..... Appellant
Company Ltd. Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Krishna Charan Choudhury & ..... Respondents
Ors. Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
(Respondent No. 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No. 3. In spite of sufficiency of notice, no appearance
has been made on behalf of the Claimant-Respondent No. 1. Nobody
is also there on behalf of Respondent No. 4 when the matter was
called.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging the award passed by the learned 5th MACT, Berhampur
vide judgment dtd.24.08.2022 in MAC Case No. 347 of 2011. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal allowed compensation amount of
Rs.2,81,356/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that since the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, negligence
on the part of the driver of the Car was not taken into consideration
and on the ground of contributory negligence of the driver of the Car,
the amount of compensation should have been assessed.
4.1. It is also contended that Claimant-Respondent No. 1 never
produced any documentary evidence showing the expenses incurred
towards his treatment. But the Tribunal without having any
documentary evidence, awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,81,356/-.
4.2. It is also contended that save and except the Injured-Claimant
who was examined as P.W. 1, no other independent witness was
examined to substantiate the claim of the Claimant/Respondent No.
1.
4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the impugned award needs
interference of this Court.
5. Since nobody is appearing in spite of due service of notice on behalf
of Claimant-Respondent No. 1, this Court has no occasion to know
the stand of the Claimant-Respondent No. 1. However, after going
through the materials available on record, it is found that no document
has been exhibited showing the expenses incurred by the Injured for
his treatment, because of the injury sustained in the accident in
question.
5.1. Considering the submission made and the materials available on
record, this Court is inclined to held the Claimant-Respondent No. 1
entitled to get the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with
interest @ 6% payable from the date of application till its realization.
While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-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. On such deposit
of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of
Claimant-Respondent No. 1 in full in terms of the Judgment
dtd.24.08.2022.
5.2. 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.2,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
5.3. 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.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
