Orissa High Court
D.M vs Dhirendra Baghar & Others on 12 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1176 of 2023
D.M., M/s. National Insurance ..... Appellant
Co., Ltd., Angul. Mr. B. D. Mohapatra,
Advocate
-versus-
Dhirendra Baghar & Others ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. for Resp.
No.1 & 2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.02.2025
Order No. 02 I.A. No.2162 of 2023
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent No.3, notice against the said Respondent is treated as
sufficient.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company contended
that even though the impugned judgment was passed on 14.11.2022,
but due to the laches on the part of the engaged counsel in not
providing the certified copy in time, the appeal could not be filed
within the prescribed period of limitation.
4.1. It is further contended that the certified copy of the impugned
judgment was received in the office of the appellant in the month of
August, 2023 and after getting due approval of the higher authority,
the appeal was filed on 01.12.2023 with delay of around 283 days.
4.2. It is contended that since due to non-supply of the certified copy
by the engaged counsel for a pretty long period, in spite of several
request the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of
limitation, the delay in filing of the appeal be condoned.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents on the
other hand contended that the stand taken in Para-3 of the I.A since
is not supported by any documentary evidence, such stand cannot be
accepted. Stand taken in Para-3 of the I.A reads as follows:-
"3. That the impugned judgment was passed on
14.11.2022. The counsel was requested to provide the
certified copies on 05.01.2023 and on subsequent
dates. The certified copy was received in August 2023
after which the file was sent to the Regional Office for
approval. After getting approval the appeal has been
preferred on 01.12.2023. In the process, there has been
a delay of 283 days in preferring appeal".
6. To the submission made by the learned counsel for the
Claimant/Respondent, learned counsel for the appellant contended
that this Court by condoning the delay may decide the appeal basing
on the available materials with cost if any.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court is inclined to condone
the delay in filing of the appeal subject to payment of cost of
Rs.2,000/- before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare
Fund. Cost be deposited by tomorrow with filing of the receipt.
8. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Order No.3 MACA No.1176 of 2023
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.14.11.2022 so passed by the District
Judge-cum-1st MACT, Angul in MAC Case No. 25 of 2021. Vide
the said Judgment, the Tribunal allowed the claim application so
filed by the Respondents-Claimant and assessed the compensation
at Rs.10, 86,064/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
2. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the vehicle in question was planted by the Claimant-
Respondents in order to get the compensation awarded in their
favour. The stand taken in Para-B of the appeal reads as follows:-
"B. For that the Learned Tribunal grossly erred in
deciding issue no 1 & 2 in favour of the claimants despite
the fact that the factum of apparent collusion between the
claimant no.l, Owner of the motor cycle & Police was
established from the records as there was delay in
lodging FIR against unknown vehicle initially and the
brother in law of the deceased had not disclosed about
the involved vehicle even though he was a signatory in
the inquest report and that the Claimant no 1 and the
Respondent no 1 are co brother in laws. Hence the
impugned judgement should be set aside".
2.1. Placing reliance on the stand taken in Ground No. B of the
appeal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
on the face of such ground, the Tribunal should not have allowed the
claim with passing of the impugned award in question. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is liable for
interference of this Court.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents on the
other hand contended that the grounds taken in Ground No.B is not
the ground taken by the appellant before the Tribunal while filing
the written statement.
3.1. It is also contended that no such evidence was also laid by the
appellant that the vehicle was planted by the claimant and evidence
laid through OPW1 cannot be accepted as he was the Investigator
and not an occurrence witness. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned award has been rightly passed taking into account the
police report wherein the offending vehicle was charge sheeted.
3.2. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent contended that Claimant-Respondent will be
fully satisfied, if this Court awards compensation to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- by confirming the interest payable @ 6 % from the
date of application till its realisation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the aforesaid
proposition so laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-
Respondent for reducing the compensation to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- with the interest as awarded leave it to the discretion
of this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.14.11.2022 held the Claimant-
Respondent entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with
interest payable @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of
application till its realisation. This Court accordingly while holding
so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount
of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% 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 Claimant-Respondents
proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 14.11.2022.
5.1. However, it is observed that if the compensation amount as
directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the
aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount
of Rs. 10,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for
the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks
till its payment.
5.2. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount
as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of
the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the
Registry on proper identification.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
