Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager Oriental vs Sabera Khatun & Ors on 23 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 123 of 2025
Divisional Manager Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., BBSR ........ Appellant(s)
Mr. Somnath Roy, Adv.
-Versus-
Sabera Khatun & Ors. ....... Respondent (s)
Mr. Debasish Patnaik, Adv.
(for Respondent No.1 to 4)
Mr. Pradeep Ku. Mishra, Adv.
(for Respondent No.5)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
23.10.2025
Order No.
14.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the
impugned judgment/award dated 31st December, 2024
passed by the Commissioner for Employee's
Compensationcum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in
E.C. Case No.277 of 2021, wherein compensation to the tune
of Rs.22,50,762/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the
date of accident i.e. from 09.07.2020 till the date of payment
has been granted on account of the accidental death of the
deceased workman arising out of and in course of his
employment as Assistant Electrician under Respondent No.5.
4. Mr. Roy Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the
Learned Commissioner erred in holding that the accidental
death of the deceased arose out of and in course of his
employment under respondent No.5 particularly when the
deceased died in a road traffic accident out side the work
premises of the respondent No.5 and also beyond his duty
hours. He further submits that the Learned Commissioner
has erred in law in saddling the compensation on the
appellant insurer particularly when the respondent
No.5/employer of the deceased has already paid
Rs.22,61,845/- to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as
proved by the O.P.W.1 examined on behalf of the
Respondent No.5. Mr. Roy further submits that the Learned
Commissioner has committed wrong in law in calculating
the compensation by holding the monthly salary of the
deceased as Rs.21,444/- particularly when as per policy
schedule the total annual estimated earning of one skilled
workmen was Rs.2,27,7721-covered under the policy as such
Rs.600/- as wage per day after deducting professional Tax
ought to have been taken for 26 days in a month for
calculation of compensation. Mr. Roy further contended that
appellant to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 particularly when u/s.3(1)
of the Employees Compensation Act., 1923 the primary duty
of the employer is to pay the compensation to his
employees/dependants of the employees in case of injuries or
death arising out of and in course of employment and then
seek reimbursement from the insurer after satisfying the
requirements as envisages as per the terms and conditions of
the policy.
5. Mr. Patnaik, earned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 submits that the employer respondent No.5 has
not deposited any amount before the Employees
Compensation Commissioner u/s. 8(1) of the E.C. Act, 1923
as such the amount received by the claimants/respondent
Nos.1 to 4 from Respondent No.5 cannot be treated as
compensation paid by Respondent No.5. Any amount paid
to the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 out of court settlement cannot
be treated as compensation.
6. Having heard all the parties and considering all such
grounds of challenge advanced a reduced compensation of
Rs.18,50,000/- consolidated is proposed to the parties in
course of hearing and the same is agreed by the learned
counsel Mr. Patnaik appearing for the claimants/respondent
the appellant/insurance company and counsel for the
respondent No.5 have left it to the discretion of the court.
Accordingly, the amount is reduced to the said extent.
7. Since the entire awarded amount has been deposited by the
Appellant/Insurance Company before the Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner,
Cuttack, the Commissioner is directed to disburse the
reduced consolidated amount of Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand) with proportionate accrued
interest thereon in favour of the claimants within a period of
two months from today. The balance amount with
proportionate accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to
the Insurer-Appellant.
8. Accordingly, the FAO is disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
