Orissa High Court
Branch Manager vs Raghunath Nayak & on 9 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.696 OF 2017
Branch Manager, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd., BBSR Mr.S. Roy, Adv.
-versus-
Raghunath Nayak & ..... Respondents
Another Mr. P.K. Behera, Adv.
(for Respondent No.1)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
09.01.2025
Order No.9
Misc. Case No.1047 of 2017
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Since deficit Court fee has already been paid, office is
directed to accept the same.
4. The Misc. Case stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Order No.10
Misc. Case No.1298 of 2017
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Even though notice has not been issued to Respondent
NO.2-owner, but in view of the fact that right of recovery has
already been allowed in favour of the owner-respondent and
no appeal has been filed by the owner/Respondent as
contended, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in
filing the appeal.
3. The Misc. Case accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Order No.11
MACA NO.696 OF 2017
1. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr.P.K. Behera, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-company
challenging the judgment so passed by the learned Additional
District Judge-cum-MACT, Jeypore vide judgment
dt.06.03.2017 in MAC Case No.54 of 2012(T). Vide the said
judgment, the Tribunal allowed compensation to the tune of
Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realisation.
3. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant-company contended that Tribunal failed to take
note of the fact that the Claimant-Respondent No.1 was
riding the motor cycle without holding any driving licence
which was in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal
taking into account the contributory negligence of the
Respondent No.1, should have assessed the compensation at
a lower side.
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended
that the Tribunal also wrongly assessed compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities to life and
loss of expectation of life which is also at a much higher side.
3.2. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Company contended that the impugned judgment
needs interference of this Court.
4. Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel for the Claimant-
Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the
impugned award needs enhancement substantially as the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration various aspects
pleaded by the Claimant-Respondent No.1 in support of the
claim.
5. However in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing
for the claimant-Respondent No.1 contended that this Court
will allow compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum, ends of justice will be met.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company to
the aforesaid proposition of the learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 leave the same to the discretion of
this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined to held
the claimant-Respondent No.1 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-
Company to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest payable @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of claim application till its
realisation before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the
Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 in terms of the judgement
dt.06.03.2017.
7.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company
will fail to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within
the time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum payable
from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is
so deposited.
7.3. 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 accordingly stands disposed of.
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 20-Jan-2025 18:39:24
