Orissa High Court
Satyabhama Dash @ vs Sanjukta Mohapatra on 13 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.974 of 2023
Satyabhama Dash @ Appellant
Mohapatra ....
Mr. B.P Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sanjukta Mohapatra Respondents
.... Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
(for Res. Nos.1 to 3)
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv.
(for Res. No.5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.03.2025
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.P Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. A.A. Khan,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5.
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging
the judgment dt.01.09.2023 so passed by the learned 2nd
Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T, Bhubaneswar in
M.A.C. Case No.127 of 2013.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended
that the aforesaid claim application was filed by the present
Respondents No.1 to 3, seeking grant of compensation in
// 2 //
respect of the death of the deceased in a motor accident. It
is also contended that in the said claim case, the present
appellant was impleaded as proforma Opp. Party No.3.
4.1 It is contended that in the aforesaid claim case, Opp.
Party No.3 taking into account the documents exhibited by
the Petitioners vide Ext.16 & 17 was required to be taken as
a claimant, she being the 1st wife of the deceased (Certified
copy of Ext.16 & 17 so produced in Court be kept on
record).
4.2. It is contended that in the proceeding before the
learned J.M.F.C, Puri in Misc. Case No.9 of 1997, the
deceased admits the present appellant as his wife. On the
face of such admission, there was no occasion on the part of
the Tribunal to disbelieve the compromise effected in
between the deceased and the present appellant, and in not
holding the appellant as one of the claimants.
4.3. It is contended that on the face of such documents
exhibited by the Petitioners in the claim case vide Exts.16 &
17, the appellant should have been awarded her part of the
award as due and admissible in accordance with law, being
a claimant. But the Tribunal while awarding compensation
to the tune of Rs.9,30,000/- along with interest, directed for
disbursal of the same in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3
only, applicants in the claim case.
4.4 It is contended that in view of Exts.16 & 17, there is no
dispute that the appellant is the wife of the deceased, the
order passed by the Tribunal in not giving the share as due
// 3 //
and admissible to the present appellant while disbursing the
entire award in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of
this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the other hand contended that
since no documents were exhibited by the appellant before
the Tribunal that she is the wife of the deceased and no
evidence was also laid to that effect, no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment. It is
also contended that in terms of the award, 50% of the
awarded amount has already been disbursed in favour of
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and balance 50% has been kept in a
fixed deposit.
6. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent-wife
on the other hand contended that the entire award amount
has been satisfied in the meantime with deposit of the
amount before the Tribunal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court after going
through the documents vide Exts.16 & 17 so produced in
Court, finds that the deceased admits the present appellant
to be his wife. On the face of such admission by the
deceased effected in Misc. Case No.9 of 1997, and disposal
of the matter by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri vide order
dt.29.09.1997, it is the view of this Court that, the Tribunal
committed an error in not accepting the appellant as a legal
// 4 //
heir of the deceased and accordingly a claimant to the
award.
7.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined
to hold the appellant entitled to get her share of the
compensation as due and admissible in the award so passed
by the Tribunal.
7.2. Since it is contended that out of the compensation
amount of Rs.9,30,000/- with interest, 50% of the amount
has been released in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
balance 50% has been kept in fixed deposit, this Court
directs the Tribunal to assess the compensation as due and
admissible to the appellant and disburse the same from out
of the amount kept in the fixed deposit. On such disbursal
of the share of the appellant, rest of the amount shall be
disabused in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in terms of
the impugned judgment dt.01.09.2023.
Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2025 16:11:59
