Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Renuka Thamba on 18 November, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1247 of 2018
Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. .... Appellant
LTd.
Ms. S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
1.Renuka Thamba
(since dead)
2.Kasturi Thamba
3.Sangram Thamba
4.Supriya Thamba .... Respondents
5.Upendra Singh Mr. D. Panda,
Advocate
(R.1-4)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order 18.11.2025
No.
13. I.A No.57 of 2018
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company and learned counsel for the
Respondents-Claimants.
3. Considering the recitals in the I.A, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
1. It is stated by the learned counsel that
Respondent No.1 has passed away in the
meantime.
2. Since L.Rs of Respondent No.1 are already
on record, there is no need for substitution. Hence,
the appeal abates qua Respondent No.1 and the
appeal is confined to Respondent Nos.2 to 4-
Claimants.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company and learned counsel for the
Respondent-Claimants
4. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed
this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated
30.04.2018 passed by the learned 1st M.A.C.T, Angul
in M.A.C No.175 of 2016 awarding compensation of
Rs.14,81,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the application
till the date of payment.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the Claimants
that on 25.01.2016 while the deceased along with
some others were going to Talcher from Banarpal in a
TATA Magic Auto bearing registration number OR-19-
M-1309, the offending truck came in a high speed
from the opposite direction and dashed against the
said TATA Magic Auto as a result of which the
deceased died at the spot. As such claim application
was filed claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
6. Opposite Party No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle, who is Respondent No.5 herein was set ex
parte. Appellant-Insurance Company appeared and
filed its written statement denying the assertions
made in the claim petition.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed:
"1. Whether the MAC case is maintainable?
2. Whether on 25.01.2016 the deceased
Santosh Thamba died in an accident and the
said accident was caused by rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle ?
3.Whether the petitioners are entitled to get
compensation ? If so, from whom and to
what extent ?
4. To what other relief(s) the Petitioners are
entitled ?"
In order to substantiate the claim, Claimant-
Petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one
independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and
documents were exhibited on behalf of the Claimants
and marked as Exts.1 to 4. Though Insurance
Company has not examined any witness but
documents were marked on its behalf as Exts.A to E.
Xerox copy of office order dated 01.06.2015
issued by Premier Security Services was marked as
Ext.X by the Tribunal.
Considering the evidence on record, learned
Tribunal directed for compensation of Rs.14,81,200/-
along with 6% interest per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance
Company submits that though the Insurance
Company had taken a specific stand that the
offending truck was plying on the road without permit
on the alleged date of accident giving rise to the
claim application which finds support from the
aforesaid exhibits but the learned Tribunal did not
discuss the same in the impugned award. Hence, the
impugned award is liable to be set aside.
It is further submitted that while assessing
the compensation, the Tribunal had not taken into
consideration the fact that the deceased died due to
his own negligence.
It is stated that the Tribunal, without proper
appreciation of the materials on record, wrongly
assessed the compensation at Rs.14,81,200/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is
on the higher side.
It is also contended that even though the
Tribunal came to a conclusion that the Insurance
Company is entitled to recover the compensation
from the owner-Respondent No.5, but right of
recovery as against the owner-Respondent No.5 was
not allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the Claimants supports
the impugned award and submits that the same does
not warrant any interference. On the contrary,
learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the
compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.
9. On a conspectus of the evidence on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on
the higher side. Hence, this Court, after analyzing the
rival contentions on the touchstone of just
compensation, is persuaded to hold that modifying
the compensation amount from Rs.14,81,200/- to
Rs.14,00,000/- (rupees fourteen lakhs) along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
application till the date of payment would sub-serve
the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount of
Rs.14,00,000/- (rupees fourteen lakhs) along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum before the
learned Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being
made, the compensation amount shall be disbursed
amongst the Claimants Respondent Nos.2 to 4 within
a period of four weeks thereafter. The Claimant-
Respondent No.2 shall be entitled to 50% of the
compensation. The balance amount shall be kept in a
fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of
six years. On maturity of the said amount along with
accrued interest shall be disbursed in equal
proportion between the Claimants-Respondents 3 and
4. The fixed deposit shall not be encumbered without
leave of the learned Tribunal.
Default interest as awarded in terms of the
impugned award is set aside.
The Insurance Company is at liberty to pursue
the remedy as available under law against the owner of
the offending vehicle-Respondent No.5 as directed.
11. On production of proof regarding deposit of
the modified amount before the learned Tribunal, the
statutory deposit along with accrued interest be
refunded to the Insurance Company on proper
application.
12. The MACA is accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
PKS
Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 27-Nov-2025 21:53:43
