Orissa High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sulochana Paik & Ors on 20 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.342 of 2023
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant
Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Sulochana Paik & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate
(Respondent Nos.1 to 4)
Mr. A.K. Swain, Advocate
(Respondent No. 5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.02.2025
Order No. 03 I.A. No. 1187 of 2023
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
4. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In spite of appearance, counsel
for Respondent No. 5 is not present, when the matter was taken up.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.20.12.2022 so passed by the 2nd MACT, Northern
Division, Sambalpur in MAC Case No. 96/2013. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal while allowing the claim filed by the
Claimants-Respondents awarded compensation amount of
Rs.6,82,010/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the application till its realization.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation wrongly saddled the liability on the Appellant-
Company instead of Respondent No. 5-Owner because at the time of
accident the deceased was travelling on the offending vehicle as a
gratuitous passenger and driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid driving licence, which runs contrary to the terms and
condition of the policy.
3.1. It is also contended future prospect has been wrongly awarded
@ 40%, though taking into account the age of the deceased, the
same should have been calculated @ 25%.
3.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel for the Appellant-
Company contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the
aforesaid contentions so raised by the Appellant, the compensation
amount would have been on the lower side. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of
law and needs interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondents supported the impugned award, but in
course of hearing contended that Claimants-Respondents will have
no grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.5,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
5. 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 be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No.
5, because of the admitted violation of the policy condition.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.20.12.2022 held the Claimants-
Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.5,10,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing
of the claim application till its realization with right of recovery as
against Owner-Respondent No. 5. This Court accordingly while
holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation
amount of Rs.5,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization 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 Judgment passed on 20.12.2022.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the 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.5,10,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment.
6.2. Since this Court is allowing right of recovery as against
Respondent No. 5, it is observed that if any such application is
moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-
Respondent No. 5, the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the
application in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to Respondent No. 5.
6.3. 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.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
