Orissa High Court
Hdfc Ergo G.I. Co. Ltd vs Rabinarayan Panda & Ors on 17 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.667 of 2019
HDFC ERGO G.I. Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Rabinarayan Panda & Ors. ..... Respondent
None
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. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company. None appeared on behalf of the Claimants-Respondents in
spite of due appearance. None had also appeared on 10.04.2025 and
in order to provide another opportunity to the Claimants-
Respondents, the matter was adjourned to today.
3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the award
passed by the learned Third MACT, Jajpur vide judgment
dtd.29.07.2019 in MAC Case No. 74 of 2015. Vide the said Judgment
the Tribunal allowed compensation amount of Rs.8,54,000/- 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 even though the deceased was a
bachelor at the time of accident, but in the claim application filed by
the Claimants, Claimant-Respondent No. 3 was shown as the adopted
son of the deceased. In support of such adoption, only one School
Leaving Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Damodarpur Nodal
U.P. School was produced vide Ext. 10, but with objection.
4.1. It is contended that save and except the aforesaid document,
which was exhibited with objection, no other document was filed
showing that Claimant-Respondent No. 3 is the adopted son of the
deceased. It is also contended that in order to prove Ext. 10, no
witness was examined by the Claimants. It is accordingly contended
that since Ext. 10 was exhibited with objection and no evidence was
laid in support of the same, Claimant-Respondent No. 3 should not
have been accepted as the adopted son of the deceased with award of
compensation in his favour.
4.2. It is also contended that since driver of the offending vehicle was
not having valid D.L., the Tribunal though allowed right of recovery,
but on that ground the Appellant should have been exonerated from
the liability in full. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
award needs interference of this Court.
5. Since nobody is there on behalf of the Claimants-Respondents, this
Court is unable to know their stand. However, after going through the
materials placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and the fact that Ext. 10 was exhibited with the objection
and no such evidence was laid to prove the same, this Court is of the
view that no claim should have been entertained in respect of
Claimant-Respondent No. 3.
5.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while interfering with the
impugned award, is inclined to reduce the same to the extent it was
allowed in favour of Claimant-Respondent No. 3. However, for the
ends of justice this Court is inclined to held the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% payable from the date of
application till its realization. This Court is also inclined to confirm
the right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 4. While
holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/-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
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 proportionately as per the above
observation of this Court.
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.6,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
5.3. It is also observed that if any application will be filed by the
Appellant seeking recovery of the compensation from
Owner/Respondent No. 4, the same be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No. 4.
5.4. 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
