Orissa High Court
Deputy General Manager vs Asha @ Ashamani Mohanta & on 20 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.428 of 2023
Deputy General Manager, ..... Appellants
National Aluminium Co. Ltd. & Mr. T.N. Murty, Advocate
Anr.
-versus-
Asha @ Ashamani Mohanta & ..... Respondents
Ors. Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 & 2)
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 3 & 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.03.2025
Order No.08
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. T.N. Murty, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants, Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging
the impugned Judgment dtd.30.01.2023 so passed by District Judge-
cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No. 09 of 2018. Vide
the said Judgment while assessing the compensation at
Rs.1,25,72,227/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, the
Appellants along with Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were held liable to
pay the compensation so assessed jointly to the extent of 50% each.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants contended that since both the vehicles involved in the
accident were insured with Respondent Nos. 3 & 4-Company, the
Tribunal while assessing the compensation should not have held the
Appellants liable to the extent of 50%. It is contended that though
both the vehicles bearing Registration No. OD-10C-7728 (Dumper)
and OR-10E-8255 (Bolero Jeep) were involved in the accident
causing the death of the deceased on 15.11.2017, but since both the
vehicles were insured with due issuance of the policy by Respondent
Nos. 3 & 4-Company, the entire liability should have been saddled
on Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. But the Tribunal without proper
appreciation illegally held the Appellants liable to the extent of
50%. It is accordingly contended that liability fixed on the
Appellants to the extent of 50%, is not legally tenable and requires
interference of this Court.
4.1. A further submission was also made that on the death of the
deceased, wife of the deceased was not only extended with all the
benefits as due to the deceased employee by the Appellants, but also
wife of the deceased was provided with the benefit of compassionate
appointment.
4.2. It is further contended that the claim application was filed by
the parents of the deceased, aged about 77 years and 81 years at the
relevant point of time, claiming compensation for the death of the
deceased in the road accident in question.
4.3. However, without proper appreciation of the fact that both the
vehicles were insured with Respondent Nos. 3 & 4-Company, the
Tribunal erred in holding the Appellants liable to pay compensation
to the extent of 50%. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
award needs interference of this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.
3 & 4-Company on the other hand made his submission that though
it is not disputed that both the vehicles were insured with the
Company, but the policy taken by the Appellant in respect of the
Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. OR-10E-8255 being a private
car liability policy, and the policy so issued, does not cover the
Department as provided under Sec. 147 of M.V. Act, 1988. It is also
contended that as provided under the India Motor Tariff-29, an
employee, who travels as an occupant in the employers' vehicle,
will be covered by the Insurance-Company, only when the employer
has paid separate/extra premium to cover its employee. Since the
Appellant being the owner of the offending Bolero vehicle had not
made any separate contract to cover its employees by paying
separate/extra premium, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 because of the
involvement of the two vehicles, was saddled with 50% liability.
5.1. It is contended that in view of the nature of policy issued in
favour of the offending Bolero vehicle, the Tribunal while assessing
the compensation, held the Appellant liable to the extent of 50% and
the same has been rightly passed, taking into account the nature of
policy issued by the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4-Company. It is however
contended that in the meantime Respondent Nos. 3 & 4-Company
has satisfied the award to the extent of 50% as directed along with
the interest.
6. Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Claimant-
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the other hand contended that since
because of the fault committed by the Appellant-Company in not
taking an appropriate policy in respect of the offending Bolero, the
Tribunal while assessing the compensation has rightly saddled the
Appellants to pay compensation to the extent of 50%. It is also
contended that the Appellant-Company being a Navaratna Company
of the Govt. of India, it has got the capability to pay the amount. It is
also contended that award to the extent of 50% has been satisfied by
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4-Company in the meantime.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
however does not dispute the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the Appellants regarding extension of all the benefit as
due and admissible to the deceased employee in favour of the wife
of the deceased and so also compassionate appointment provided to
the wife of deceased employee.
7.1. However, in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondents contended that if this Court will held the
liability of Appellant-Company to the extent of 25,00,000/-
consolidated, the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 will have no
further grievance.
8. Mr. T.N. Murty, 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.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.17.11.2023, held the liability of the
Appellant-Company to the extent of 25,00,000/- consolidated. While
holding so, this Court directs Appellant-Company to deposit the
aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.25,00,000/- consolidated
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-Respondent Nos.
1 & 2 proportionately in terms of the Judgment dtd.30.10.2023.
9.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period, the compensation
amount of Rs.25,00,000/- consolidated will carry interest @ 6% per
annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period
of eight (8) weeks till the amount is so deposited.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
