Orissa High Court
Branch Manager vs Samir Kumar Godnaik on 17 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.891 of 2024
Branch Manager, HDFC
General Insurance
Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Samir Kumar Godnaik
and Another .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 -Claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant produced the receipt
showing deposit of deficit Court fee of Rs.14,510/- on
17.06.2025. Copy of the receipt so filed be kept in
record.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.26.04.2024 so
passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
// 2 //
MACT, Rourkela, Sundargarh in MAC Case No.220 of
2019. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.29,02,000/- along with interest @
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.29,02,000/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Pick Up
bearing Registration No. OD-14-P-0802 caused the
accident on 10.05.2019 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.29,02,000/-.
3.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that the tribunal
never take into consideration the fact that the FIR was
lodged after a delay of 114 days. It is also contended
that tribunal committed a wrong by holding the loss of
earning capacity to the tune of Rs.3,36,000/- including
future prospect to the extent of 40% as the applicant
during his cross examination at Para-14 admitted that
he was working in a Private Company and was earning
// 3 //
Rs.13,000/- per month. It is accordingly contended that
impugned judgment needs interference of this Court.
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. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 supported
the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended
that the Claimant-Respondent No.1 will have no
grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced
to Rs.18,50,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realization.
5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, 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. However, it is
contended that right of recovery so allowed by the
tribunal be confirmed. It is also contended that
challenging the right of recovery so allowed, no appeal
has been filed by Respondent No.2.
// 4 //
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
impugned Judgment dtd.26.04.2024 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimant-Respondent
No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.18,50,000/- 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, learned tribunal
shall do well to disburse the amount proportionately in
terms of the judgment dated 26.04.2024 in favour of the
Claimant-Respondent No.1. 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.18,50,000/- 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.
6.2. Since this Court has confirmed the right of recovery
as against Respondent No.2, it is observed that if any
// 5 //
such application is moved by the Appellant to recover
the amount from the Owner-Respondent No.2, the
Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to Respondent No.2.
6.3. Invalidated cheque be returned back to the learned
counsel for the appellant after satisfaction of the award
on proper identification.
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
