Orissa High Court
D.M vs Rajkumari Behera & Ors on 25 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.279 of 2025
D.M., Oriental Insurance Co., ..... Appellant
Ltd., Sundargarh Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Rajkumari Behera & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3)
None for Respondent No.4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.06.2025
Order No.03 I.A. No.616 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A., the delay in filing of
the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to
be paid before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund
by 30.06.2025.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Respondent Nos.1 to 3. In spite of appearance, no one is there on
behalf of Respondent No.4.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.06.07.2024 so passed by the learned 2nd
ADJ-cum-5th MACT, Rourkela in MAC Case No. 244 of 2019. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.12,71,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in
support of the appeal contended that driver of the offending vehicle
being in drunken condition, when accident took place and owner of
the offending vehicle having permitted the driver to drive the
vehicle, that amounts to violation of policy condition. But the
Tribunal did not appreciate the said contention.
3.2. It is also contended that without having definite proof of
income, grant of compensation towards future prospect with interest
is not permissible. Making all these submission, it is contended that
the impugned award needs interference of this Court.
4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondents though on the other hand supported the impugned
Judgment and contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
compensation, but in course of hearing contended that the
Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will
assess the compensation amount at Rs.12,50,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended
that right of recovery so allowed by the Tribunal as against Owner-
Respondent be confirmed, as no appeal challenging such right has
been preferred by the owner-Respondent No.4.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the
appeal is inclined to held the Claimants-Respondents entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.12,50,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum payable from the date of application till its realization
and confirm the right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent
No.4. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company
to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.12,50,000/- along with
interest @ 6% interest per annum payable from the date of filing of
the claim application till its realization before the Tribunal 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 Claimants-Respondents proportionately in terms of the
Judgement dtd.06.07.2024.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the
compensation amount of Rs.12,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
6.2. It is also observed that if any application will be filed by the
Appellant seeking recovery of the compensation from
Owner/Respondent No.4, the same be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent.
6.3. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be
permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest if any from the Registry on proper identification.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
