Orissa High Court
M/S. National vs Bidyadhara Prusti And on 23 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NOs.210 OF 2024 & 1068 OF 2023
MACA No.210 of 2024
M/s. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellants
Mr. B. Dasmohapatra,
Advocate
-versus-
Bidyadhara Prusti and ..... Respondents
Another Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.
(for Resp. NO.1)
MACA No.1068 OF 2023
Bidyadhar Prusti ..... Appellant
Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.
-versus-
Shankarshan Behera & ..... Respondents
Another Mr. B. Dasmohapatra,
Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
23.06.2025
Order No.03
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
.
2. Since both these appeals have been filed against
a common judgment, both were heard analogously
and disposed of by the present common order. In
spite of due service of notice on the owner-
Respondent in MACA No.1068 of 2023, no
appearance has been made and notice against the
owner-Respondent has already been treated as
sufficient.
2.1. Vide the impugned judgment, the tribunal has
assessed the compensation at Rs.17,76,264/- in MAC
Case No.370 of 2019 and Rs.17,30,225/- in MAC
Case No.329 of 2019 along with interest @ 6% per
annum in both the cases payable from the date of
filing of the claim application till its realization.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer in
MACA No.210 of 2024 while assailing the impugned
award, contended that on the face of the admission
that permit of the offending vehicle was never
produced in spite of appearance by the owner nor
seized by the I.O., while holding the appellant liable to
pay the compensation, right of recovery should have
been allowed.
3.1. It is also contended that on the face of the
claim made by the Claimant-Respondents, the
compensation has been assessed at a higher side on
different head. It is accordingly contended that while
interfering with the impugned award, right of recovery
.
be allowed against the owner-respondent. Permit of
the offending vehicle was never produced before the
Tribunal nor seized, which amounts to violation of the
policy condition.
4. In support of enhancement of the award, learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant in MACA No.1068
of 2023, contended that while allowing the
compensation, no compensation has been awarded
towards future prospect which should have been
calculated @ 25%. It is accordingly contended that the
award needs enhancement.
4.1. However, in course of hearing learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-Claimant in MACA
No.1068 of 2023 contended that the Claimant-
Appellant will have no grievance, if the compensation
amount will be enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/-, with
interest @ 6% per annum so awarded by the tribunal.
5. Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company in MACA No.210 of 2024
left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned
counsel for the Claimant-Respondents to the
discretion of this Court. However, right of recovery be
allowed as against Owner-Respondent.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court
while interfering with the impugned judgment and
.
disposing both the appeals, held the claimant 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
in MACA No.210 of 2024 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, the
Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the
Claimant-Appellant in MACA No.1068 of 2023
proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on
05.09.2023.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as
directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-
Company in MACA No.210 of 2024 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 no appearance has been made by the
Owner-Respondent and permit of the offending vehicle
was never produced before the Tribunal nor seized by
the I.O., this Court is inclined to allow right of
recovery as against owner respondent.
.
6.3. Since this Court is allowing right of recovery as
against Owner-Respondent, it is observed that if any
such application is moved by the Appellant to recover
the amount from the Owner-Respondent, the Tribunal
shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of
hearing to Owner-Respondent.
6.4. Statutory deposit made in MACA No.210 of 2024
be refunded along with accrued interest, if any, on
proper identification after satisfaction of the award in
full.
7. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 26-Jun-2025 19:12:01 .
