Orissa High Court
Manager vs Bhusan Patasani And on 15 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.676 of 2024
Manager, Claim(Legal)
Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., BBSR .... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Bhusan Patasani and
Others ....
Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1 to 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
15.07.2025
I.A. No.1585 of 2024
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been
duly served on Respondent No.6, notice against the said
Respondent is treated as sufficient.
3. Heard Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K.
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
No.1 to 5-Claimants.
// 2 //
4. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of
Rs.1000/- to be deposited before the Orissa High Court
Bar Association Welfare Fund by 18.07.2025.
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been
duly served on Respondent No.6 and no appearance has
been made, notice against Respondent No.6 is treated as
sufficient.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.24.11.2023 so
passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No.151 of 2018. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.16,22,000/- along with interest @
6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
// 3 //
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.16,22,000/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Truck bearing
Registration No. OR-13-2854 caused the accident on
20.07.2018 and whether due to the rash and negligent
driving of the accused driver, accident occurred, causing
death of the deceased. It is contended that even though
such a plea was taken before the Tribunal by the
Appellant-Company, but the same was never taken into
consideration while assessing the compensation at
Rs.16,22,200/-.
3.2. It is also contended the Tribunal did not take into
consideration the stand taken by the Appellant that the
driver had no valid permit at the time of alleged
occurrence. It is also contended that the tribunal did not
take into consideration the factum of contributory
negligence of the deceased, as the deceased had no valid
driving license to drive a two wheeler on the public road.
It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the stand taken by the appellant, held
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and
accordingly assessed the compensation on the higher
side.
3.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-company contended that
// 4 //
had the Tribunal properly appreciated the stand of the
Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded would
have been on the lower side. It is accordingly contended
that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of
law and requires interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondents No.1 to 5
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimant-Respondents No.1 to 5 will
have no grievance, if the compensation amount will be
reduced to Rs.13,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per
annum so awarded by the tribunal.
5. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition
made by the learned counsel for the Claimant-
Respondents No.1 to 5 to the discretion of this Court. It
is also contended that since permit of the offending
vehicle was neither seized nor produced before the
Tribunal which amounts to violation of policy condition,
right of recovery should have been allowed. But on the
face of such stand being taken, no right of recovery was
allowed against owner-Respondent No.6.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and after
going through the materials placed, this Court while
// 5 //
interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.24.11.2023
is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant-
Respondents No.1 to 5 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.13,00,000/- 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. This Court is however inclined to allow right of
recovery as against Owner-Respondent No.6. On such
deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the
same in favour of the Claimant-Respondents No.1 to 5
proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on
24.11.2023.
6.1. 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.13,00,000/- shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from
the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till it is
deposited before the Tribunal.
6.2. It is also observed that if any such application is
moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the
Owner-Respondent No.6, the Tribunal shall do well to
dispose of the application in accordance with law and by
// 6 //
giving due opportunity of hearing to the Respondent-
Owner.
6.3. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount
as directed, appellant will be permitted to take refund of
the statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any
from the Registry on proper identification.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
