Orissa High Court
D.M vs Khiteswari Malik And on 17 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.900 of 2024
D.M., New India Assurance
Co. Ltd., Sundargarh .... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Khiteswari Malik and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate for R-1 to 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.06.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-
Claimants.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.30.04.2024 so
passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
MACT, Rourkela, Sundargarh in MAC Case No.74 of
2021. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.24,77,104/- along with interest @
// 2 //
6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.24,77,104/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Honda Shine
bearing Registration No. OD-16-D-0843 caused the
accident on 13.11.2020 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.24,77,104/-. It is contended that on
the ground of contributory negligence, the amount
should have assessed at a lower side.
3.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that as per the
P.M Report the deceased since was not wearing a helmet
at the time of the accident, it violates the provision
contained U/s.129 of the M.V. Act. It is also contended
that the tribunal committed a wrong by holding the
deceased as a skilled labourer on the face of the fact that
the deceased was having only LMV & MCWG license. It
is accordingly contended that impugned judgment needs
interference of this Court.
// 3 //
3.3. 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.
4. Even though Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4
will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will
be reduced to Rs.20,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of application till its
realization.
5. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 to the discretion of this Court. However, it is
contended that right of recovery so allowed by the
tribunal be confirmed. It is further contended that
challenging the right of recovery so allowed, no appeal
has been filed by the Owner-Respondent No.5.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and in view
of the fact that this Court while interfering with the
// 4 //
impugned Judgment dtd.30.04.2024 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- 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. On such deposit of the amount, learned tribunal
shall do well to disburse the amount proportionately in
terms of the judgment dated 30.04.2024 in favour of the
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Right of recovery
allowed by the tribunal stands confirmed.
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.20,00,000/- 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. Since this Court has confirmed the right of recovery
as against Respondent No.5, it is observed that if any
such application is moved by the Appellant to recover
the amount from the Owner-Respondent No.5, the
Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
// 5 //
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to Respondent No.5.
6.3. Invalidated cheque be returned back to the learned
counsel for the appellant on proper identification after
satisfaction of the award as directed.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jun-2025 17:19:22
