Orissa High Court
R.M vs Pathani Baliyarsingh & Ors on 25 June, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.250 of 2025
R.M., M/s. New India Assurance ..... Appellant
Co., Ltd., BBSR Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Pathani Baliyarsingh & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, Advocate
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.06.2025
Order No.02 I.A. No.464 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.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Perused the office note. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent Nos.1 to 4, notice against the said Respondents is
treated as sufficient.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.27.09.2024 so passed by the learned 1st
Addl. District Judge-cum-5th MACT, Khordha in MAC Case No. 13
of 2020. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.06.42,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in
support of the appeal contended that though it is not disputed that
the accident occurred due to head on collision in between both the
vehicles, but contributory negligence was not taken note of by the
Tribunal while assessing the compensation. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.
5. Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, 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.4,75,000/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim
application till its realization.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company left the
aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court.
6.1. It is further contended that on the face of the observations made
by the Tribunal in Para-15 of the impugned judgment since no order
was passed while disposing the matter by giving liberty to the
appellant to proceed against the other vehicles involved in the
accident, the said right be allowed.
7. 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.4,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of application till its realization.
While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,75,000/- 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.27.09.2024.
7.1. 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.4,75,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
7.2. It is open for the appellant to move the Tribunal taking into
account the observation indicated in Para-15 of the impugned
judgment to proceed against the other vehicle involved, in which
this Court expresses no opinion.
7.3. 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.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
