D.M vs Bani Patra & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 332 Ori

Orissa High Court

D.M vs Bani Patra & Ors on 8 May, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    MACA No.1173 of 2024
D.M., Oriental Insurance Co.          .....     Appellant
Ltd.                                        Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
                             -versus-
Bani Patra & Ors.                   .....     Respondents
                                                    Mr. S.S. Parida, Advocate
                                                    (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7)

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

08.05.2025 Order No.07

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice has been duly served on Respondent No. 8, notice against Respondent No. 8 is treated as sufficient.

3. Heard Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.16.07.2024 so passed by the learned 4th MACT, Keonjhar in MAC Case No. 30/23 of 2022-2019. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.9,08,752/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in support of the appeal contended that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation, without taking into consideration the fact that the

owner of the motor cycle gave his motorcycle to his brother, even if he has no valid driving licence, which amounts to violation of policy condition, wrongly held the Appellant-Company liable to pay the compensation, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while awarding compensation, awarded Rs.2,40,000/- towards parental, spousal and filial consortium, which is on the higher side.

5.2. It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed, while wrongly assessed the compensation at Rs.55,92,416/-, also allowed interest @ 7% per annum which is on the higher side.

5.3. It is also contended that the Tribunal instead of exempting the Appellant-Company from paying the compensation, only awarded right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 8. It is also contended that Respondent No. 8 was set ex parte before the Tribunal and challenging the right of recovery, Respondent No. 8 has not filed any appeal.

5.4. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded so also the interest part would have been on the lower side. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

6. Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants- Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 though on the other hand supported the

impugned Judgment and contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation, but in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 contended that the Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will assess the compensation amount at Rs.6,68,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to the discretion of this Court, contended that right of recovery so allowed by the Tribunal as against Owner-Respondent No.8 be confirmed.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, is inclined to held the Claimants- Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.6,68,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization and confirm the right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 8 as it is contended that challenging the right of recovery, Owner-Respondent No. 8 has not filed any appeal. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant- Company to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,68,000/- along with interest @ 6% interest per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization 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 to 7 proportionately in terms of the Judgement dtd.16.07.2024.

8.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not deposited within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.6,68,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the amount is so deposited.

8.2. It is also observed that if any application will be filed by the Appellant seeking recovery of the compensation from Owner/Respondent No. 8, the same be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 8.

8.3. 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.

9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack