Branch Manager vs Sukanti Purohit And
2025 Latest Caselaw 4640 Ori

Orissa High Court

Branch Manager vs Sukanti Purohit And on 5 March, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           MACA No.461 of 2020

        Branch Manager, The
        Oriental Insurance Co.
        Ltd.                              ....                   Appellant
                                                     Mr. S. Roy, Advocate

                                       -versus-
        Sukanti Purohit and
        Another                           ....                Respondents
                                          Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1
                                                              None for R-2

                            CORAM:
                 JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

05.03.2025 Order No.

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Claimant. None appeared for Respondent No.2 in spite of due appearance.

3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Company challenging Judgment dtd.19.11.2019 so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Titilagarh in MAC Case No.01 of 2015. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.36,35,620/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

// 2 //

3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that while assessing the compensation at Rs.36,35,620/-, the Tribunal never take into consideration that the offending vehicle was having no valid permit and the same though was duly pleaded before the Tribunal, but no right of recovery was allowed against the Owner-Respondent No.2. Permit of the offending vehicle was also never seized by the I.O. and accordingly no such permit was produced along with the charge-sheet. 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. Not only that while assessing the compensation at Rs.36,35,620/- and that too without allowing right of recovery, factum of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was also not taken into consideration.

3.2. 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. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended

// 3 //

that the Claimant-Respondent No.1 will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to Rs.35,00,000/-, with the interest so awarded by the tribunal.

5. Mr. S. Roy, 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.

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.19.11.2019 is inclined to held the Claimant-Respondent No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the application till its realization so awarded by the tribunal. This Court taking into account the contention that offending vehicle was not having any valid permit and driving license of the offending driver was never produced, allows right of recovery as against owner- Respondent No.2.

6.1. 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

// 4 //

dated 19.11.2019 in favour of the Claimant-Respondent No.1.

6.2. 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.35,00,000/- 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.

6.3. Since this Court is allowing right of recovery as against Respondent No.2, it is observed that if any 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.

6.4. Statutory deposit along with accrued interest be returned after satisfaction of the award as directed on proper identification.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Mar-2025 17:49:03