Orissa High Court
The Manager (T.P.Hub) vs Saudamini Mallik & Ors on 17 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 519 of 2024
The Manager (T.P.Hub)
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ........ Appellant(s)
Mr. Somnath Roy, Adv.
-Versus-
Saudamini Mallik & Ors. ....... Respondent (s)
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Adv.
(for Respondent No.1 to 4)
Mr. Sanjib Pattnaik, Adv.
(for Respondent No.5)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
17.10.2025
Order No.
06.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Respondents.
3. Present Appeal by the Insurer is directed against impugned
judgment/award dated 29th May, 2024 passed by the
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-Cum-Joint
Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.372 of 2021,
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.13,91,538/- has been
granted on account of the accidental death of the deceased in
course of his employment as a labour of the Truck bearing
registration No.OR-05-AG-9355.
4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
learned Commissioner has erred in law in holding the
deceased to be working as a labourer in the Truck bearing
Registration No.OR-05-AG-9355 engaged for unloading salt
at Gopinath Salt Bhandar and his death arose out of and in
course of his employment under Respondent No.5. When the
final report submitted by the Police reflects that the deceased
was working as a labourer in Gopinath Salt Bhandar and met
with an accident with an unknown Truck near IPICOL
Chhak while he was returning to his residence. He further
submits that the police papers are totally silent regarding the
employment of the deceased as a labour in the Truck bearing
Registration No.OR-05-AG-9355. He further contends that
the learned Commissioner has erred in holding the age of the
deceased as 48 years particularly when as per the Adhar
Card of the deceased he was 55 years old at the time of his
accidental death.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contends that the
learned Commissioner has erroneously held that wage of the
deceased was Rs.12,000/- per month instead of Rs.9090/- per
month which is the minimum wage of an unskilled workman
as fixed by the Labour and ESI Department of Government
of Odisha. However, in absence of any rebuttal evidences
from the side of the Appellant/Insurer, the said contention
are rejected.
6. Having heard both parties and considering all such grounds
of challenge advanced, a reduced compensation of
Rs.9,50,000/- consolidated is proposed to the parties in course
of hearing. The same is agreed by Mr. Panigrahi, learned
counsel for the claimants. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the
Appellant/Insurer leaves it to the discretion of the Court.
Accordingly, the amount is reduced to said extent.
7. Since the entire award amount has been deposited before the
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-Cum-Joint
Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, the Commissioner is
directed to disburse the reduced consolidated amount of
Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with
proportionate accrued interest thereof in favour of the
claimants within a period of two months from today. The
balance amount with proportionate accrued interest thereof
shall be refunded to the Insurer-Appellant. However, penalty
and penal interest @ 12% as directed by the Commissioner is
waived.
8. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Judge
