Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sukanti Nayak & Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.603 of 2024
The Divisional Manager, ..... Appellant
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Sukanti Nayak & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.04.2025
Order No.04 I.A. No. 1430 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard.
3. Perused the office note. Since notice on Respondent No. 5 has come
back with the postal endorsement "Addressee Refused", notice
against the said Respondent is treated as sufficient.
4. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
5. 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 counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. Memo containing death certificate of Respondent No. 4 filed in
Court be kept in record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents
contended that Respondent No. 4 has died on 21.07.2018 and all his
legal heirs since are on record, no substitution is required.
Accordingly, it is contended that Respondent No. 4 be deleted from
the cause title.
4. Considering the submission, learned counsel for the Appellant is
permitted to delete Respondent No. 4 from the cause title in Court.
5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.15.02.2024 so passed by the learned 4th
MACT, Keonjhar in MAC Case No. 57/21 of 2018/2017. Vide the
said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.53,16,082/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in support
of the appeal contended that the Tribunal while awarding the
compensation, did not deduct the amount towards income tax from
the gross annual income of the deceased. It is also contended that the
Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.1,90,000/- towards spousal, parental
and filial consortium along with general damages instead of
Rs.70,000/-, which is not sustainable in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors..
6.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation never take into consideration the fact that on the date
of accident the Owner-Respondent No. 5 had violated the policy
condition by handing over the offending motorcycle to an
unauthorized person, who had no driving licence to drive it on the
public road. It is also contended that the Tribunal instead of
exempting the Appellant-Company from paying the compensation,
only awarded right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 5.
It is also contended that Respondent No. 5 was set ex parte before the
Tribunal and challenging the right of recovery, Respondent No. 6 has
not filed any appeal.
6.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the
aforesaid contention of the Appellant, the compensation amount so
awarded should have been on the lower side with right of recovery
against Owner-Respondent No. 5. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires
interference of this Court.
7. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though on the other hand supported the
impugned Judgment and contended that the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation, but in course of hearing learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondents contended that the
Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will assess
the compensation amount at Rs.48,50,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till
its realization.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended that
right of recovery so allowed by the Tribunal as against Owner-
Respondent No.5 be confirmed.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment, is inclined to held the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.48,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of application till its realization and confirm the 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.48,50,000/- 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 the Claimants-
Respondents proportionately in terms of the Judgement
dtd.15.02.2024.
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.48,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
9.2. It is also 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)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
