Orissa High Court
Mukesh Oram vs Kishore Minz & Anr on 19 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.471 of 2024
Mukesh Oram ..... Appellant
Mr. S. Choudhury, Advocate
-versus-
Kishore Minz & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. U.S. Patel, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
19.06.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant and Mr. U. Patel, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 1.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that in the
claim application filed by the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 in MACT
Case No. 55/253 of 2022, Appellant entered appearance through his
Counsel on 25.11.2022. In spite of due appearance through his
counsel, the engaged counsel neither filed the written statement nor
took part in the proceeding and accordingly while treating the
Appellant as ex parte, the matter was heard with passing of the
impugned judgment on 21.11.2023 under Annexure-4.
3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that since
the impugned award has been passed without giving due opportunity
of hearing to the Appellant who happens to be the Owner of the
offending vehicle and because of the latches on the part of the
engaged counsel, Appellant was deprived to produce relevant
document showing that the vehicle was having all valid documents as
on the date of accident, unless the impugned judgment is set aside and
opportunity of hearing is given to the Appellant, Appellant-Owner
will be seriously prejudiced. It is accordingly contended that that the
matter be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter by
giving due opportunity of hearing to the Appellant on any terms and
conditions as deem fit and proper.
4. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent
No. 1 on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment,
contended that since on the face of his appearance on 25.11.2022
neither any written statement was filed nor the engaged counsel
participated in the proceeding, no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the impugned judgment. It is accordingly contended that
no interference is called for.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the claim
application filed by the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 in MACT No.
55/253 of 2022, Appellant entered his appearance through counsel on
25.11.2022. As found from the order sheet available under Annexure-
3 after such appearance no written statement was filed by the
Appellant and subsequently he was ex parte because of the non-
appearance of the engaged counsel.
5.1. Since for the latches of the engaged counsel Appellant was not
only set ex parte but also the impugned award has been passed, it is
the view of this Court that the matter requires a fresh adjudication by
the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned
judgment dtd.21.11.2023 so passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge-cum-4th MACT, Sundargarh in MAC Case No. 55/253 of 2022.
While quashing the impugned judgment, this Court remits the matter
to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication with the condition that the
Appellant shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Claimant-Respondent
No. 1 before the Tribunal. Appellant shall also file his written
statement along with all relevant documents within a period of four
(4) weeks hence. On such filing of the written statement along with
the documents, the Tribunal shall proceed with the matter and decide
the issue in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no
opinion. Cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the Claimant-Respondent No.
1 along with the written statement to be filed within the time
stipulated by this Court.
6. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
