Orissa High Court
D.M vs Susant Kumar @ Santosh on 10 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.153 of 2025
D.M., Oriental Insurance Co. ..... Appellant
Ltd., BBSR Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Susant Kumar @ Santosh ..... Respondents
Kumar Behera & Anr. Mr. P.C. Pattanaik, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.07.2025
Order No.03 I.A. No. 369 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent No. 2, notice against the said Respondent is treated as
sufficient.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
4. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent No. 2, notice against the said Respondent is treated as
sufficient.
2. Heard Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. P.C. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent No. 1.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.23.08.2024 so passed by the learned 3rd
MACT, Puri in MAC Case No. 145 of 2007. Vide the said Judgment
the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.10,74,106/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that since while taking the policy, Owner-
Respondent never paid any additional premium to cover the risk of
helper for any type of accident, the Appellant should not have been
held liable to pay the compensation.
4.1. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle since
was having Light Motor Vehicle licence, the same amounts to
violation of the policy condition as the driver was driving a transport
vehicle and accordingly, right of recovery should have been
allowed.
4.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated the aforesaid contention so raised by the Appellant, the
compensation amount so awarded should have been on the lower
side with right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 2. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned award needs interference
of this Court.
5. Mr. P.C. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-
Respondent No. 1 with regard to violation of policy condition
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle since was having
LMV licence, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in
the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rambha Devi & Ors., the said issue is no more res integra and the
driver of the offending vehicle was to be treated, having the valid
D.L. as on the date of accident.
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent while
supporting the impugned Judgment, though contended that the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation, but in course of
hearing contended that the Claimant-Respondent will have no
grievance, if this Court will reduce the compensation amount to
Rs.9,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while
leaving the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for
the Claimant-Respondent to the discretion of this Court, contended
that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent
No.2.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment, is inclined to held the Claimant-
Respondent entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.9,25,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of
application till its realization. While holding so, this Court directs
the Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of
Rs.9,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% interest per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization
before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
is directed to disburse the same in favour of Claimant-Respondent
No. 1 in full.
7.1. 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.9,25,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment.
7.2. 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.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
