The Divisional Manager vs Swapnajita Senapati & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9550 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9550 Ori
Judgement Date : 30 October, 2025

Orissa High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Swapnajita Senapati & Anr on 30 October, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                     FAO No. 415 of 2025
                            The Divisional Manager, Oriental
                            Insurance Co. Ltd., BBSR                     ........   Appellant(s)
                                                                          Mr. Adam Alli Khan, Adv.
                                                            -Versus-
                            Swapnajita Senapati & Anr.            ......                Respondent (s)
                                                                       Mr. Pradeep Ku. Mishra, Adv.
                                                                              (for Respondent No.1)
                                                               Mr. Bibhu Prasad Panda, Adv. For R-2

                                         CORAM:
                                         DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                     ORDER

30.10.2025 Order No.

03.

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 25.04.2025 passed by the

Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-

Divisional Labour Commissioner, Keonjhar in E.C. Case No.1

of 2022, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.34,48,913/-

shall be paid within 30 days failing which interest @ 12% per

annum from the date of application shall be realized as has

been granted on account of the accidental death of the

Designation: Junior Stenographer deceased workman arising out of and in course of his

Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:01:48 employment as Core Drill Operator under Respondent No.2.

4. Mr. Khan, 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.2 particularly when the

deceased died after taking his lunch and was moving

towards the vehicle parking in front of the company canteen

of the respondent No.2 and also beyond his duty hours. Mr.

Panda submits that the learned Commissioner has erred in

law in saddling the compensation on the appellant insurer

particularly when the respondent No.2/employer of the

deceased has already paid Rs.10,58,950/- to the

claimant/Respondent No. 1. Mr. Khan 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.35,900/- particularly when as per policy

schedule the monthly estimated earning of one highly skilled

workmen was Rs.20,115/- covered under the policy. He

further contended that the Learned Commissioner erred in

law in directing this appellant to pay the compensation

amount to the claimant/respondent No. 1 particularly when

u/s.3(1) of the Employees Compensation Act., 1923 the

primary duty of the employer is to pay the compensation to

Designation: Junior Stenographer his employees/dependants of the employees in case of Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:01:48 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. Mishra, earned Counsel appearing for the Respondent

No.1 submits that the employer respondent No.2 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 No.1 from

Respondent No.2 cannot be treated as compensation paid by

Respondent No.2. Any amount paid to the Respondents

Nos.1 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.23,90,000/- consolidated is proposed to the parties in

course of hearing and the same is agreed by the learned

counsel Mr. Mishra appearing for the claimant/respondent

No.1 and Mr. Khan and Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the

appellant/insurance company and counsel for the

respondent No.2 have left it to the discretion of the court.

Accordingly, the amount is reduced to the said extent.

Signature Not 7. Since the entire awarded amount has been deposited by the Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Appellant/Insurance Company before the Commissioner for Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:01:48 Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour

Commissioner, Keonjhar, the Commissioner is directed to

disburse the reduced consolidated amount of Rs.19,32,000/-

(Rupees Nineteen Lakh Thirty Two Thousand) with

proportionate accrued interest thereon in favour of the

claimant within a period of two months from today. The

balance amount with proportionate accrued interest thereon

shall be refunded to the Insurer-Appellant. The Respondent

No.2/ Triveni Earthmovers Private Limited is directed to

deposit balance amount of Rs.4,58,000/-(Rupees Four Lakh

Fifty Eight Thousand Only) in favour of the

claimant/Respondent No.1 before the Commissioner within

eight weeks hence for onward disbursement to the claimant.