Orissa High Court
Sulochana Pradhan & Others vs Amarjit Singh & Another on 13 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.993 of 2023 & MACA No.997 of 2023
MACA No.993 of 2023
Sulochana Pradhan & Others ... Appellants
Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Amarjit Singh & Another ... Respondents
Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate for R.2
MACA No.997 of 2023
D.M., M/s. National Insurance ... Appellant
Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar
Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Sulochana Pradhan & others ... Respondents
Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate
for Res. Nos.1 to 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.03.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since both
the appeals arise out of a common judgment, both
were heard analogously and disposed of by the present
common order.
3. While MACA No.993 of 2023 has been filed by the
appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of the
award, MACA NO.997 of 2023 has been filed by the
insurer challenging the award so passed by the
learned 4th MACT, Puri in MAC Case No.448 of 2023.
4. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant in MACA No.997 of
2023, contended that initially challenging the nil
award passed by the Tribunal, the matter was carried
to this Court by the claimants in W.P.(C) No.21460 of
2014. It is contended that the aforesaid award was set
aside by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 and
the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
disposal.
4.1 It is contended that after such remand of the
matter vide order dated 16.01.2023, the appellant
company was never noticed and in absence of any
fresh notice, the appellant was set ex parte vide order
dated 18.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter was heard
finally on 5.7.2023 and the impugned judgment was
passed on 17.07.2023.
4.2 It is contended that since after remand of the
matter by this Court, neither the appellant was
noticed nor given an opportunity of hearing, the
impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of
law and it needs interference of this Court.
5. Mr. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
appellant in MACA No.993 of 2023 on the other hand
contended that after remand of the matter, the earlier
engaged counsel for the insurer participated in the
proceeding and his name was reflected as the counsel
for the appellant/insurer in the impugned judgment.
It is contended that since the earlier engaged counsel
appearing for the insurer participated in the
proceeding and accordingly the matter was disposed of
vide the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2023, no
illegality or irregularity can be found to the impugned
judgment. It is also contended that basing on the
grounds taken in MACA No.993 of 2023, the award
needs enhancement.
6. To the submission made by Mr. Mohanty, Mr.
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant in MACA No.997 of 2023 contended that
after remand of the matter the earlier engaged counsel
had no authority to appear on behalf of the appellant
company and no such permission was ever accorded
to him to appear on behalf of the appellant/insurer. It
is contended that since the matter was remanded vide
order dated 16.01.2023 of this Court, prior to taking
up of the matter, the appellant should have been
noticed and it is a mandatory requirement. As the
same has not been followed, the impugned judgment
is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made by the parties, this
Court finds that initially when the Tribunal passed a
nil award, the same was assailed by the claimants
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.21460 of 2014. It is
not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that
the matter was remanded to the Tribunal vide order
dated 16.01.2023.
7.1 This Court taking into account the order of
remand, is of the view that after such remand of the
matter by this Court, the Tribunal should have issued
notice to the appellant to appear and to participate in
the proceeding. The action of the Tribunal in asking
the previously engaged counsel to participate on
behalf of the appellant, as per considered view that is
not permissible.
7.2 In view of such illegality, which is apparent on the
face of the impugned judgment, this Court is inclined
to quash the impugned judgment dated 17.07.1993
passed by the learned 4th MACT, Puri in MAC Case
No.448 of 1993. While quashing the same, this Court
remits back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the
case afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to all
concerned. Sine at the instance of insurer this order is
being passed, the appellant in MACA No.997 of 2023
is directed to appear before the Tribunal along with a
copy of this order on 26.03.2025 and on his
appearance before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall
take up the issue and fix a date of hearing. Since the
claim is of the year 1993, this Court directs the
Tribunal to dispose of the same, within a period of
three months from the date of appearance of the
appellant. None of the parties will be given any
adjournment in course of disposal of the matter.
8. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
