Orissa High Court
The Manager Legal vs Kuni Mallick And Others on 30 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 269 of 2025
The Manager Legal, M/s. Shriram .... Appellant(s)
General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Khurda
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Girija Prasad Dutta, Adv.
-versus-
Kuni Mallick and others .... Respondent(s)
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
30.07.2025
Order I.A. No.521 of 2025
No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. This application has been filed for condoning the delay
of 28 days in preferring the Appeal.
3. Heard.
4. Considering the submissions and on going through the
averments made in this I.A., prayer is allowed. Delay in
preferring the Appeal is, hereby, condoned.
Date: 31-Jul-2025 19:25:48
// 2 //
5. I.A. is disposed
1. Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against
impugned judgment/award dated 4th February, 2025
passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Cuttack in
E.C. Case No.252 of 2023, wherein compensation to the
tune of Rs. 12,13,504/- has been granted on account of
death of the deceased in course of his employment as a
helper of the Truck tor bearing registration No.OR-05-
AT-1797.
3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant though
vehemently disputes the liability on the ground that no
premium has been paid to applicant. But in view of the
Judgment reported in 2009(2) OLR 982 such contention is
rejected. He further submits that since at the time of
accident, the vehicle had no permit, the insurance
company is not liable but considering the dispute
regarding permit as reflected in the order and
considering the fact that the vehicle was stationary, such
// 3 //
contention is rejected. Further he also dispute the income
of the deceased, but in absence of any evidence adduced
from the side of the insurer on income, said contention is
rejected.
4. Having heard both parties and considering all such
grounds of challenge advanced, a reduced compensation
of Rs.7,75,000/- consolidated is proposed to the parties in
course of hearing. The same is agreed by Mr. Panigrahi,
learned counsel for the claimant. Mr. Dutta, learned
counsel for the Insurer leaves it to the discretion of the
Court. Accordingly, the amount is reduced to said extent.
5. Since the entire award amount has been deposited
before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-
Cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, the
Commissioner is directed to disburse the reduced
consolidated amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) with proportionate accrued
interest thereof in favour of the claimant within a period
of two months from today. The balance amount with
proportionate accrued interest thereof shall be refunded
to the Insurer-Appellant. However, penalty & penal
// 4 //
interest @ 12% as directed by the Commissioner is
waived.
6. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sisir
