Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs E Hemakanti Khamari And & on 20 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.796 OF 2024
Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Company .... Appellant
Ltd., Sundargarh
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
e Hemakanti Khamari and & .... Respondents
Ot others
Mr. P.C.Chhinchani,Adv.
(for Respondent Nos.1 to 5
Mr. D. Pattanaik, Adv.
(for Respondent No.6))
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.03.2025
I.A. No.3059 of 2024
Order No.
05. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard
3. Considering the grounds taken, the prayer made in the
I.A is allowed.
4. Documents enclosed to the I.A be treated as an addl.
evidence.
5. I.A accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
// 2 //
Order No.6
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.12.01.2024 so passed by the
learned First Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Rourkela
in MAC Case No.181 of 2019. Vide the said Judgment, the
Tribunal allowed the compensation at Rs.86,15,620/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of
filing of the claim application till its realization.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant company contended that since the vehicle in
question was a Tanker, carrying petroleum products
which comes under the definition of 'Hazardous Goods',
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid
driving licence as the driver was only permitted to drive
hazardous vehicle w.e.f 24.08.2001.
3.1. It is also contended that though factum of head on
collision was alleged, but contributory negligence, was not
taken into consideration, while assessing the
compensation.
3.2. It is further contended that taking into account the
age of the deceased, multiplier 14 should have been
applied in place of multiplier 15. From the document
taken as additional evidence, driver of the offending
// 3 //
vehicle was permitted to drive hazardous vehicle w.e.f
24.08.2021 and the date of accident which is not disputed
is 21.07.2019. Therefore, since the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive
hazardous vehicle, right of recovery be allowed.
4. Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of claimants-respondent on the other hand while
supporting the impugned judgment contended that the
award has been rightly passed. However, in course of
hearing learned counsel for the claimants-respondents
contended that the claimants-respondents will be fully
satisfied if this Court will award compensation amount
to Rs.81,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization.
5. 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.
6. Mr. D. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Owner-Respondent No.6 on the other hand contended
that if taking into account the driving licence so
accepted as an additional evidence, driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence to
drive hazardous vehicle as on the date of accident , if
// 4 //
this Court is inclined to grant right of recovery, then the
owner-respondent No.6 be given due opportunity of
hearing before the Tribunal, if any such application is
ever moved by the appellant to recover the amount.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court
taking into account the submissions made is inclined to
reduce the compensation amount to Rs.81,00,000/-
along with interest @ 6% as awarded. However this
Court is inclined to allow right of recovery as against the
owner-respondent no.6, as from the additional evidence
produced before this Court, it is found that the driver of
the offending vehicle was permitted to drive hazardous
vehicle w.e.f 24.08.2021 and even though the accident
took place on 21.07.2019.
7.1. 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, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in
favour of the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in terms
of the Judgment dt.12.01.2024.
7.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-
Company will fail to deposit the compensation amount
within the time stipulated here-in-above, the
// 5 //
compensation amount of Rs.81,00,000/- shall carry
interest @7% per annum payable from the date of expiry
of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is so deposited.
7.3. It is observed that if any such application is
moved by the Appellant-company to recover the amount
from the owner-respondent No.6, the said Respondent
shall be given due opportunity of hearing by the
Tribunal and the said application so filed be decided in
accordance with law.
7.4. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount
as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to
take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest, if any, on proper identification.
The M.A.C.A is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authenticaton of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 27-Mar-2025 11:47:04
