Orissa High Court
M/S. Icici Lombard General vs Kumudini Mohanta & Others on 24 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.482 OF 2024
M/s. ICICI Lombard General Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Kumudini Mohanta & Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
24.02.2025
Order No.
02. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.22.02.2024 so passed by the learned 4th MACT,
Keonjhar in MAC Case No.73/212 of 2019/2016. Vide the said
Judgment, the Tribunal allowed the compensation at Rs.42,63,090/-
along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of
the claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Company contended that in view of the admission made by the
Informant in the FIR vide Ext. A that the deceased dashed against a
tree while driving a two wheeler and accordingly succumbed to the
injury, but the Tribunal without any cogent evidence disbelieved Ext.
// 2 //
A and held that the doctor since never mentioned the death of the
deceased caused due to such accident, Ext. A cannot be relied on.
4.1. It is also contended that in Para12 of the cross-examination of
P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, she categorically admitted
that the motorcycle was registered in the name of the deceased, who
had no driving licence. Such admission of P.W 1 was discarded by the
learned Tribunal without any cogent reason, and which is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. It is further contended that the F.I.R vide Ext.1, was lodged after
a long delay of 48 days and sufficient reason has not been shown by
the Informant to explain such delay. Not only that second F.I.R was
registered on the basis of a frivolous complaint case, which should not
have been relied on.
4.3. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-
company contended that the impugned judgment needs interference of
this Court as the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the stand
taken by the Appellant allowed the application vide the impugned
judgment.
5. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for Claimants-
Respondents No.1 to 3 supported the impugned award, but in course
of hearing, contended that the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 will be
fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation amount to
Rs.39,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
// 3 //
6. Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel
for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the discretion of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering
the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned
award held the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.39,00,000/- 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 amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3
proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 22.02.2024.
7.1. 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.39,00,000/- shall carry interest
@7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8
(eight) weeks till it is so deposited.
7.2. It is observed that Account Payee Cheque so deposited by the
appellant company and not yet invested be returned back after
satisfaction of the award.
8. The M.A.C.A is accordingly disposed of.
Digitally Signed (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:28:05
Sneha
