Orissa High Court
D.M vs Madhusmita Patra And on 25 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.161 of 2024
D.M., M/s. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
.... Appellant
Ms. S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Madhusmita Patra and ....
Another Respondents
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.07.2025
I.A. No.434 of 2024
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the dispute is with regard to quantum
only.
4. In view of such submission, this Court is inclined
to condone the delay in filing the appeal
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
P.T.O.
// 2 //
1. Heard Ms. S. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1-Claimant.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.19.04.2023 so passed
by the learned 3rd MACT, Balasore in MAC Case No.228 of
2017 (28-2018). Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal
assessed the compensation at Rs.5,21,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of
the claim application till its realization.
2.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assailing the compensation at
Rs.5,21,000/-, the Tribunal never take into consideration
as to whether the offending Bike bearing Registration No.
OR-11-A-9203 caused the accident on 18.11.2016 and
whether due to the rash and negligent driving of the
accused driver, accident occurred, causing injury to the
injured. 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.5,21,000/-.
2.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that even though the accident took
place on 18.11.2016 but the FIR was lodged by the father
// 3 //
of the injured on 23.11.2016. It is also contended that the
story narrated in the FIR was not corroborated by the
informant/father of the injured while recording his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. It is also contended
that in view of such discrepancy in the story narrated in
the FIR and the 161 statement, offending vehicle should
not have been charge-sheeted by the I.O.. It is also
contended that in absence of any proof of medical bills,
compensation has been assessed at Rs.3,11,284/- towards
medical bills.
2.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-company contended that 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.
3. Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned
award, contended that since the charge-sheet filed by the
IO was never challenged by the Appellant-Company,
implication of the offending vehicle having been proved, it
cannot be assailed in the present appeal. It is also
contended that in view of the decision governing the field,
strict adherence to the provisions contained in the
Criminal Law is not required to be followed in the case of
compensation arising out of the Motor Vehicle Act.
// 4 //
3.1. It is also contended that taking into account the
evidence available in the record, the Tribunal has rightly
held the appellant liable. However, in course of hearing
contended that the Claimant-Respondent No.1 will have no
grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.4,50,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum so awarded
by the tribunal.
4. Ms. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made by
the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 to
the discretion of this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and after going
through the materials placed, this Court while interfering
with the impugned Judgment dtd.19.04.2023 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimant-Respondent No.1
entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/- 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
No.1 proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on
19.04.2023.
// 5 //
5.1. 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.4,50,000/- 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.
5.2. 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.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:52:44
