Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co vs Chingdu Jani & Others on 17 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA Nos.806 & 852 of 2018
Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. M.C. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Chingdu Jani & Others
.... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate R-1 & 2
Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.01.2025
Order No.
06. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Both these appeals have been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.19.04.2018 so
passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT,
Nabarangpur in MAC Case No.8 of 2017. Vide the said
Judgment, the Tribunal allowed the compensation at
Rs.4,86,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization. The Tribunal also allowed right of
recovery to Respondent No.3-owner.
// 2 //
4. In support of the appeal so filed by Appellant-Insurer
in MACA No.806 of 2018, learned counsel for the
appellant-company contended that since the policy was
violated and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger,
the liability should have been fixed on the owner-
respondent only. It is also contended that rate of interest
allowed @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application
till its realization is on the higher side. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned award needs interference
of this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent in MACA No.852 of 2018 seeking
enhancement of the compensation so awarded,
contended that during the relevant time though
minimum wages for unskilled labourer was fixed @
Rs.207.20 paisa but the Tribunal wrongly calculated the
monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4500/- i.e.
Rs.150/- per day. It is also contended that the Tribunal
did not award any compensation towards future
prospect.
5.1. It is contended that had the Tribunal take the
monthly income of the deceased by taking the minimum
wages prevalent at that point of time and allowed the
compensation towards future prospect, the
compensation amount should have been assessed at
Rs.7,11,708/-. It is however contended that rate of
// 3 //
interest allowed @ 7.5% per annum can be considered
by this Court as raised by the Appellant-Insurer.
5.2. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for
the Appellant in MACA No.852 of 2018, contended that
the claimant-respondent will be satisfied if this Court
will enhance the compensation amount to Rs.6,80,000/-
along with interest @ 6 % per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
6. Mr. M.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant in MACA No.806 of 2018 left the aforesaid
proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent to the discretion of this Court.
7. Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent-Owner basing on the cross objection
filed in MACA No.852 of 2018, contended that right of
recovery so allowed by the Tribunal against the Owner-
Respondent needs interference of this Court as the
vehicle in question was having the valid policy.
8. To the submissions made by learned counsel for
the Owner-Respondent, learned counsel for the
Company/Insurer contended that since admittedly
policy condition has been violated, right of recovery has
been rightly allowed and it needs no interference.
// 4 //
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court
while disposing both the appeals held the claimants
entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.6,80,000/-
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 in MACA
No.806 of 2018 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 No.1 & 2
proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on
19.04.2018.
9.1. This Court however is not inclined to interfere with
the right of recovery so allowed against the Owner-
Respondent. However, it is observed that if any such
application is moved by the Appellant-Insurer to recover
the amount from the owner-respondent, the said
Respondent shall be given due opportunity of hearing by
the Tribunal and the application so filed be decided in
accordance with law.
9.2. Statutory deposit made be refunded to the learned
counsel for the appellant-company in MACA No.806 of
2018 and the Owner-Respondent in MACA No.852 of
// 5 //
2018 along with accrued interest, if any, on proper
identification.
10. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Reason: authentiction of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 17-Jan-2025 16:52:07
