The Divisional Manager vs K. Bairi Reddy & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 263 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Divisional Manager vs K. Bairi Reddy & Another on 7 May, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     MACA No.1108 of 2024


The Divisional Manager                    .....             Appellant
Oriental Insurance Company                             Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
Ltd., Ganjam

                                  -versus-


K. Bairi Reddy & Another                .....              Respondents
                                                      Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. for
                                                  Resp. No.1to 5


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

07.05.2025

Order No. 05 I.A. No.1202 of 2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Though the I.A has been filed for modification of the order dtd.27.03.2025, but considering the grounds taken, the order dtd.27.03.2025 is hereby recalled.

4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Order No.6. 07.05.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dtd.17.05.2024 so passed by the learned 2nd MACT, (S.D), Berhampur, Ganjam in M.A.C. Case No.191 of 2023. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.13, 01, 950/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, but right of recovery was not allowed against owner / Respondent No.2 on the ground that the owner was not aware about the expiry of the D.L.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent though supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended that the Claimant-Respondent will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

6. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent to the discretion of this Court. However, it is

contended that right of recovery be allowed against Respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that if this Court is inclined to allow right of recovery as against Respondent No.2, then in the event of filing of any application by the appellant to execute the right, Respondent No.2 be given due opportunity of hearing.

7.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondents also contended that since Claimant-Respondent No.1 during pendency of the appeal has already died on 30.03.2025 leaving behind legal heirs claimant-Respondent Nos.2 to 5, no substitution is required, her share may be released in favour of claimant-Respondent Nos.2 to 5 proportionately in terms of the judgment dtd.17.05.2024.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.17.05.2024, held the Claimant- Respondent entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.11,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.11,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization 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 proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 17.05.2024.

This Court however allows right of recovery as against owner/Respondent No.2.

8.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.11,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. On such deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant will be permitted to take back refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification.

8.2. It is further observed that, if any application seeking realisation of the award amount will be moved by the appellant, shall be given due opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal and the matter will be decided in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall also deliberate as to whether Respondent No.2 was aware about the D.L. having lost its validity.

9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK