Orissa High Court
Manager Claims vs Manoranjan Pattnaik & on 12 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.743 of 2019
Manager Claims, M/s. IFFCO- ... Appellant
TOKIO G.I. Co. Ltd.
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Manoranjan Pattnaik & ... Respondents
Others
Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate
For Res. Nos.1 & 2
Mr. B.B. Singh for Res. No.3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.03.2025
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, inter
alia, challenging the judgment dated 03.07.2019
passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhanjanagar in
M.A.C. No.192 of 2014. Vide the said judgment, the
Tribunal allowed compensation to the tune of
Rs.9,94,634/- along with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
3. While assailing the impugned award, learned
counsel for the appellant contended that since the
F.I.R. was lodged more than 33 days from the date of
alleged occurrence and the deceased died due to
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, who
was charge sheeted, the Tribunal could not have
entertained the claim application. However, the
Tribunal not only entertained the claim application
but also awarded compensation in favour of
respondent no.2, who is the son of respondent no.1. It
is further contended that the vehicle charge sheeted
by the I.O. is not involved in the alleged offence. It is
accordingly contended that the claimant/respondent
no.1 since was riding the motorcycle bearing
Registration No.OD-07-B-5099 and was charge
sheeted, the appellant company should not have been
saddled with the liability.
4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondent nos.1 & 2 on the on the other
hand contended that not only the offending vehicle
was named in the F.I.R., but also was charge sheeted.
Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SLP(C) No.10351 of 2019 (Ranjeet &
Another Vrs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Another) decided
on 25.02.2025, no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the impugned award. In course of hearing,
learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no.2
however contended that if this Court will award
compensation amount to the tune of Rs.8,50,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of application till its realization, the
claimant/Respondent No.2 will have no grievance.
5. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 & 2 for award of compensation at Rs.8,50,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum to the discretion of this
Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court
while interfering with the impugned Judgment
dtd.03.07.2019 is inclined to reduce the same and
held the Claimant-Respondent No. 2 entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @
6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
application till its realization.
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 dated 03.07.2019 in favour of
the Claimant-Respondent No.2.
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.8,50,000/-
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. It is observed that only after deposit of the
amount as directed, appellant will be permitted to take
refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest if any from the Registry on proper
identification.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
