Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Pramod Kumar Kar & Anr on 8 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 188 of 2025
Divisional Manager, M/S. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O-II, ........ Appellant(s)
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mahali, Adv.
-Versus-
Pramod Kumar Kar & anr. ........... Respondent(s)
Mr. Pradeep Ku. Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
08.09.2025
I.A. NO.334 OF 2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing
the Appeal.
3. Heard.
4. Considering the submissions made and on going
through the averment taken in the petition, the prayer for
condonation of delay in filing the Appeal is allowed.
5. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
FAO NO.188 OF 2025
6. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
7. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the
impugned judgment/ award dated 18th November, 2024 passed by
the learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-
Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case
No.278D/2013 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.18,72,150/-
has been granted on account of injuries sustained by the claimant
during course of his employment as a driver/operator of the Shakti
Power Tiller bearing Engine No.SIIF-114806 and Chasis No.VIIF-
204821.
8. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant though
vehemently disputes that the injured applicant had no D.L. to
drive the power tiller at the time of accident. The submission of Mr.
Mahali is rejected as the power Tiller does not come under the
purview of Motor Vehicle and the Registration is not required
under M.V. Act, 1988 and as per the settled principle of law. A
specific ground regarding disability and income of the injured took
that the injured had sustained 65% disability and loss of earning
capacity 85% as assessed by the treating doctor who is not an
orthopedic specialist. Hence, the learned Commissioner should not
have accepted the disability and loss of earning capacity as
assessed by the concerned doctor. The submission regarding the
disability is reduced and the same is accepted by the learned
counsel for the Respondent No.1.
9. Having heard both the parties and considering all such grounds
of challenge advanced, it appears that a reduced compensation of a
consolidated sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is proposed to the parties in
course of hearing. The same is agreed by Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel for the claimant. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the
Insurer leaves it to the discretion of the Court. Accordingly, the
amount is reduced to the said extent.
10. Since the entire awarded amount has been deposited before the
learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-
Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C Case No.278D of
2013, the Commissioner is directed to disburse the reduced
consolidated amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh) with
proportionate accrued interest thereof in favour of the claimant
within a period of two months from today. The balance amount of
Rs.8,72,150/- with proportionate accrued interest thereon shall be
refunded to the Insurer-Appellant. However, the penalty 50% and
penal interest @ 12% as directed by the Commissioner is waived.
11. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi)
Judge
