Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhabani Sankar Panda & Anr on 8 May, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.79 of 2021
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Bhabani Sankar Panda & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.05.2025
Order No.07
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for Claimant-Respondent No. 1.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.07.01.2020 so passed by the learned 4th
MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No. 657 of 2002. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.3,72,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing
of the claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that in absence of any proof, the Tribunal
wrongly assessed the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- per month
though during the relevant point of time the minimum wages of an
unskilled worker was Rs.50/- per day and accordingly the monthly
income should have been assessed at Rs.1500/-.
4.1. It is also contended that the disability certificate though was
obtained after more than 9 years of the accident, but the same was
taken into consideration by holding the same at 50% towards loss of
income.
4.2. It is also contended that though arising out of the same accident
and in the claim application filed by the deceased, which is the
subject matter of challenge in the connected MACA No. 80 of 2021,
taking into account that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having DL and charge sheet was filed under Sec. 181 of the M.V.
Act, right of recovery was allowed, but in the present case no such
right of recovery was allowed.
4.3. It is also contended that the injury being simple in nature and
documents to the extent of Rs.48,000/- having been produced
towards treatment and other expenses, the Tribunal should not have
assessed the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- on that head. It is
accordingly contended that because of wrong appreciation made by
the Tribunal, the compensation amount was assessed at
Rs.3,72,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned award needs interference.
5. Basing on the cross objection learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that since
no compensation has been awarded towards future prospect and the
Claimant-Injured being a student, the award needs enhancement.
5.1. However, in course of hearing Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 contended
that if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of
application till its realisation, the Injured-Respondent No. 1 will
have no grievance.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while
leaving the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for
the Claimant-Respondent No. 2 to the discretion of this Court,
contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-
Respondent No. 2.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.07.01.2020, held the Claimant-
Respondent No. 1 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and allow
right of recovery as against Respondent No. 2-Owner as such right
of recovery has been allowed by the Tribunal in MAC No. 659 of
2002, which is also under challenge in MACA No. 80 of 2021. This
Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company
to deposit compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- 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 No. 1 in terms of the Judgment passed on 07.01.2020.
7.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not
be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time
period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment.
7.2. It is also observed that if any application will be filed by the
Appellant seeking recovery of the compensation from
Owner/Respondent No. 2, the same be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No. 2.
7.3. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be
permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest if any from the Registry on proper identification.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
