Orissa High Court
Manager (Legal) vs Rasamani Mahanta & on 7 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.721 of 2024
Manager (Legal), Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Co., Ltd. Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Rasamani Mahanta & .... Respondents
Others Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. for Resp. Nos.1
to 4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
07.07.2025
I.A. No.1331 of 2024
Order No.
3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for
3. This application has been filed seeking
extension of time to pay the deficit court fee.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that deficit
court fee has already been paid. Memo showing deposit of
deficit court fee filed in Court be kept in record.
5. In view of such submission, this Court while disposing
the I.A., directs the office to accept the deficit court fee.
6. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
04. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for
2. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A., the delay
in filing of the appeal is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
05. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging the judgment dt.26.12.2023 so passed by the
learned 4th MACT, Keonjhar in MAC Case No.89/158 of
2022-2020. Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal awarded
compensation at Rs.20,48,500/- along with interest @ 7 %
per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim
application till its realization.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant contended that since admittedly the accident
took place inside the Orissa Mining Corporation premises,
Putulupani which is a private place, the appellant is not
liable to pay the compensation.
4. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondents on the other hand contended that
the place in which the accident occurred is a public place
and the definition of public place has been dealt with by this
Court in its order passed on 24.11.2022 in MACA No.1292 of
2017 & MACA No.88 of 2018. This Court in Para-7, 8 and 9
of the said order has held as follows:-
"7. The definition of „public place‟, as explained by the
Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of
Pandurang Chimaji Agale v. New India Life
Insurance Co. Ltd., 1988 ACJ 674 (Bombay), is as
follows:-
"The definition of 'public place' under the Act is,
therefore, wide enough to include any place
which members of public use and to which they
have a right of access. The right of access may
be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated
by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes
or badges or on payment of fee. The use may
be restricted generally or to particular purpose
or purposes. What is necessary is that the place
must be accessible to the members of public
and be available for their use, enjoyment,
avocation or other purpose."
8. The same concept is also explained by our High
court in the case of M.K. Bhoumik vs- Sukura Singh
and others, AIR 2011 Orissa 144.
9. In the instant case, no evidence has been
brought on record by the insurer to say the place of
accident is anyway restricted to public access. It is not
that the place of accident is a place where the access
of public has been restricted or denied for any other
reason. What is seen from the copy of the Police papers
that the place of accident is the road side of Cuttack-
Paradeep road. P.W.1, the Executive H.R. of Lanco
Infratech Limited, has stated in his cross-examination
that the work site, where the deceased was working,
had no access of public and it is a private area. This
statement of P.W.1 made in his cross-examination is
not a valid or authenticated statement since neither
any document has been produced to support his
contention nor he is the appropriate authority to say
the place is restricted from access of public."
4.1. Considering the stand taken in the appeal and the
decision relied on by Mr. Mishra, this Court when took a
view that the accident has occurred in a public place and
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the claimants-respondents will be fully
satisfied if this Court will reduce the compensation amount
to Rs.18,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned
counsel for the Claimants-respondents to the discretion of
this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined reduce
the compensation to Rs.18,50,000/-along with interest @
6% per annum payable from the date of application till its
realization. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant-
Company to deposit compensation amount of
Rs.18,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realization
within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
5.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount,
the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of
the Claimants-Respondents Nos.1 to 4 proportionately in
terms of the judgment dt.26.12.2023.
5.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company
will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the
time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of
Rs.18,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum
payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight)
weeks till it is so deposited.
6. Account Payee Cheque not yet invested be returned to
the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant after
satisfaction of the award in terms of the present order on
proper identification.
7. The MACA accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
