Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Kumar Barla And Another on 20 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1175 OF 2024
Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Company .... Appellant
Ltd., Sundargarh
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Kumar Barla and Another .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra,Adv.
(for Respondent No.1)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.02.2025
Order No. I.A. No.2786 of 2024
02. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.750/- to
be deposited before the Orissa High Court Bar Association
Welfare Fund by 25.02.2025.
4. The I.A accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
// 2 //
Order No.3
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.08.04.2024 so passed by the
learned First Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Rourkela
in MAC Case No.201 of 2019. Vide the said Judgment, the
Tribunal allowed the compensation at Rs.15,85,400/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing
of the claim application till its realization. The Tribunal also
allowed right of recovery against Respondent No.2-owner.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant company contended that as the claimant was
treated in ESI hospital as he was a insured person, in view
of the Bar contained, under Section 53 & 61 the ESI Act, the
claim application is not maintainable. But the Tribunal
committed error in entertaining the claim application and
saddling the liability on the appellant-company.
3.1. It is also contended that that the Tribunal committed
wrong by holding the functional disability of respondent to
the extent of 60%, when particularly from Exts.6 & 7, it is
evident that the Respondent no.1 had initially sustained
disability to the extent of 55% due to Polio on PPRP of right
leg and sustained disability to the extent of 80% in respect
of PPRP of right lower limb, which is prior to the date of
accident.
// 3 //
3.2. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed
wrong in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain
and agony and Rs.3,00,000/- towards suffering and pain,
suffering and trauma, which is not only in the higher side
but also not sustainable in the eye of law and requires
interference of this Court. It is also contended that right of
recovery so allowed by the Tribunal be confirmed.
4. Even though learned counsel for claimant-Respondent
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the claimant-respondent will be satisfied if
this Court will award compensation amount to
Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-company left the aforesaid proposition made by
the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 to the
discretion of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties,
considering the submissions made, this Court while
disposing both the appeals held the claimant entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 6%
per annum payable from the date of filing of the application
till its realization. While holding so, this Court directs the
Appellant-Company to deposit the aforesaid compensation
amount along with interest within a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the
// 4 //
amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of
the Claimant-Respondent No.1 in terms of the Judgment
passed on 08.04.2024.
6.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved by
the Appellant-company to recover the amount from the
owner-respondent No.2, the said Respondent shall be given
due opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal and the
application so filed be decided in accordance with law.
6.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company will
fail to deposit the compensation amount within the time
stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum payable
from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is
so deposited.
6.3. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount as
directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund
of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, on
proper identification.
The M.A.C.A is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 03-Mar-2025 14:30:40
