Orissa High Court
Dev Kumar Das @ Khokan vs Shiv Sahaya Yadav & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Sep-2025 16:57:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8402 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Dev Kumar Das @ Khokan .... Petitioner(s)
Das & Ors.
-versus-
Shiv Sahaya Yadav & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mohammed Mustaq Ansari, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Bikram Chandra Ghadei, Adv.
(for O.P.1)
Adam Ali Khan, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-30.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners, in this Writ Petition, have made a prayer to set aside
the impugned order dated 13.05.2023 passed by the learned 2nd MACT,
Sambalpur in MAC Case No.15 of 2022 allowing their claim petition in
part in terms of compromise and directing the Opposite Party No.2/
Insurance Company to pay the amount awarded of Rs.13,00,000/- to
them towards full and final settlement of the Motor Accident Claim
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
case. The Petitioners further seek a direction from this Court to the
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company to make payment of
Rs.4,60,800/- towards compensation for "Future Prospects" along with
9% interest to them within a stipulated period.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 25.01.2022 at around 12.00 noon while the deceased Subrat Kumar
Das who was the only son of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and only
earning member of their family was on his way to Kenghati in a bike,
in front of Sindurpank Petrol Pump, he was hit by one Tata 3118 LPT
TC Tanker bearing Registration No. DN 09H 9853, as a result of which,
he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head.
(ii) Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to DHH, Sambalpur where the
Medical Officer declared him dead. Subsequently, inquest was
conducted on the dead body of the deceased followed by post mortem
wherein the cause of death of the deceased was opined as "death was
due to head injury and its complication".
(iii) Due to untimed accidental death of the deceased, the Petitioners filed
a claim petition before the learned District Judge-cum- 1st MACT,
Sambalpur seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.51,60,000/- (Rupees
Fifty-One Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only) with 9 % interest per
annum from the date of application till realization of the amount.
(iv) Learned District Judge-cum- 1st MACT, Sambalpur on admission of
the case issued notice to the Opposite Parties. In spite of service of
notice on the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Party No.1 did not appear
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and was set ex-parte. However, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company entered appearance in the case. Subsequently, the case was
transferred to the court of the learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur.
(v) After entering appearance, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company continuously took adjournment for filing its Written
Statement. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a petition being
supported by an affidavit on 14.11.2022 with a prayer to forfeit the
right of the Opposite Party No.2 to file Written Statement and take up
the matter as expeditiously as possible. But, though the petition was
taken on record, no order was passed thereon.
(vi) When the matter was posted for hearing, on an offer extended by the
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company to amicably settle the
matter, the Petitioners decided to bring an end to the litigation and
entered into compromise with the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company through ADR mode with a settlement amount of
Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh only). The said amount was
calculated adopting the calculation method holding the field after
taking into account the monthly salary of the deceased @ Rs.12000/-
(Rupees Twelve Thousand only) per month completely ignoring and
avoiding 40% towards "Future Prospect" which the Opposite Party
No.2/ Insurance Company was duty bound to include and pay.
(vii) When the question raised for not including 40% towards "Future
Prospect" in the calculated figure, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company informed the Petitioners and the learned Tribunal that there
exists a circular which denies payment towards "Future Prospect"
upon entering into a compromise with the parties when the matter
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
gets amicably decided. But, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company failed to produce such circular even after repeated requests
of the learned Tribunal till pronouncement of the impugned order
misleading and foul playing on the Petitioners to accept the amount as
ordered.
(viii) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.05.2023 passed by the
learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur in MAC Case No.15 of 2022, the
Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition seeking appropriate relief.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the
legality of the order dated 13th May, 2023 passed by the learned 2nd
MACT, Sambalpur in MAC Case No.15 of 2022 which was filed
claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.51,60,000/- (Rupees Fifty-One
Lakh and Sixty Thousand only) with 9% interest per annum towards
untimely demise of the only earning member of their family. Though
the Petitioners have entered into compromise with the Opposite Party
No.2/ Insurance Company, but the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company deceived the Petitioners/claimants with regard to payment
of compensation towards annual dependency @ 40% on account of
"Future Prospect" of the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal
while passing the impugned order has ignored the settled position of
law on just and adequate compensation.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) It was further submitted that when the case was posted for conciliation
before the 2nd Lok Adalat, Sambalpur, due to their financial depravity
and calamitous situation, the Petitioners reached out to an amicable
settlement with the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company. The
Petitioners on reaching out to such settlement with the insurer of the
offending vehicle i.e. the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company
had received Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh only) in total
towards compensation of their claim against the accidental death of
the only earning member of their family. However, though the
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company on its own had opted to pay
Rs.1,48,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss
of prospective happiness and under other conventional heads but
denied to pay even a single penny under the head of "Future
Prospect". When the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company was
asked as to why they do not want to pay any amount under the head
of "Future Prospect", the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company
replied that there exists a circular issued by IRDA which bars
insurance companies to pay any amount under the head of "Future
Prospect" when parties arrive at a settlement and/or compromise.
When the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company was asked to
produce or submit such circular, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company though agreed to place it on record but never produced it
till payment of the compensation amount. It was contended that the
Petitioners, being influenced by the misrepresented facts and foul
played by the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company, accepted the
amount of compensation as per the impugned order.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) It was further contended that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are the
father and mother of the deceased were always under medical
supervision as they were suffering from critical ailments like Renal
Stones and Breast Cancer. In such circumstances, they were inevitably
needed for finances to cover up their medical expenses so also to
process the marriage proposal of the Petitioner No.3. Above all, they
being deceived by the misrepresentation and fraudulent submission
made by the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company, the Petitioners
accepted the compensation amount.
(iv) When there exists no Circular either by the IRDA or any other
regulatory authority which prevents the insurer i.e. the Opposite Party
No.2/ Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount
under the head "Future Prospect" on the ground of settlement and/or
compromise, the submission made by the Opposite Party No.2/
Insurance Company to the extent that there exists such Circular is
certainly a mischief, misrepresentation and a fraudulent and deceptive
practice. Nothing prevented the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company from paying the compensation amount to the Petitioners
under the head of "Future Prospect" and when they are under legal
obligation to pay the compensation under such head as per the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.1, no matter whatever be the situation i.e. a
settlement or a compromise, the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company has no right to deny to pay the compensation amount under
the head of "Future Prospect".
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) Since the impugned order has been passed ignoring the statutory
provision of MV Act, 1988 and in violation of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court time and again, the impugned order is manifestly
arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.2 to that effect.
(vi) He further submitted that the approach of the Opposite Party No.2/
Insurance Company while entering into compromise/settlement with
the Petitioners was perverse as its intention was not bona-fide but to
dupe and swindle the Petitioners of their valuable and absolute right
to have compensation under the head "Future Prospect".
(vii) Further, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the law on the
issue of entitlement of relief of compensation on "Future Prospect"
more particularly when the settlement amount has already been paid
or disbursed to claimants has been settled in Smt. Meena Pawala &
Ors. vs. Ashraf Ali & Ors.3. In Paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it
has been held that:
"xx xx xx Merely because in the execution proceedings, they
might have accepted the amount as awarded by the High
Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not take
away the rights of the claimants to claim just compensation
and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced
amount of compensation which they as such are held to be
entitled to. As such the Union of India ought not to have
taken such a plea/defence."
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Civil Appeal No. 6724 of 2021, decided on 18th November, 2021
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(viii) In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners
submitted that this Writ Petition may be allowed directing the
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company to make payment of
Rs.4,60,800/- towards compensation on "Future Prospect" along with
9% interest to the Petitioners/ claimants within a stipulated period.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2/ INSURANCE
COMPANY :
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company earnestly made the following submissions in support of his
contentions:
(i) During the pendency of the case, the Petitioners had agreed to settle
their claim case fully and finally for an amount of Rs.l3,00,000/-.
Accordingly, MAC Case No.15 of 2022 was put up before the learned
2nd MACT, Sambalpur in the Lok Adalat held on 13.05.2023. The
learned Tribunal in presence of the claimants/Petitioners and the
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company and their Advocates has
passed the impugned order directing the Opposite Party No.2/
Insurance Company to deposit the compromised amount of
Rs.l3,00,000/- with the saving account maintained by the learned 2nd
MACT, Sambalpur within a period of 2 months from the date of that
order.
(ii) In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2023, the Opposite
Party No.2/ Insurance Company had deposited the compromised
amount of Rs.l3,00,000/- with the account of the learned 2nd MACT
(ND), Sambalpur.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) He further submitted that the learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur has
erroneously passed the impugned order ignoring the compensation
attributable under the heading of "Future Prospect" which is
unsustainable in law in view of the fact that the Petitioners during the
pendency of their claim application which was registered as MAC
Case No.15 of 2022 had compromised the same with the competent
authority of the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company for
Rs.13,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of their claim and the
MAC Case No.15 of 2022 was disposed of on compromise in the Lok
Adalat held on 13.05.2023.
(iv) Supporting the impugned order, he further contended that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned order as agreed by the Petitioners
as well as their Advocate in presence of the Opposite Party No.2/
Insurance Company and its Advocate without any coercion or undue
influence. Moreover, after investigation as well as verification of all the
relevant documents when it was found that the same were found to be
in order and dispute regarding liability was not there, the Opposite
Party No.2/ Insurance Company agreed for amicable settlement of the
claim on compromise basis. After having discussion with the
Petitioners through their lawyer when the claimants / Petitioners
agreed for settlement of their claim for Rs.13,00,000/- towards full and
final satisfaction of their claim, the learned Tribunal had recorded the
compromise and pass the impugned order dated 13.05.2023 in
presence of the Petitioners, their Advocate as well as in presence of the
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company as
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
such the question of ignoring and avoiding 40% towards future
prospect by the learned Tribunal does not arise.
(v) Further, after receipt of the compromised amount the claimants/
Petitioners have again filed this Writ Petition for enhancement of the
compensation amount with the vague allegations. Hence, the Writ
Petition deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
(vi) It is further contended that the amount under the heading of "Future
Prospect" of the deceased is always required adjudication of the claim
application on merit. However, since the Petitioners has accepted
Rs.l3,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of their claim and
having compromised their claim in the Lok Adalat, hence, the plea
taken for enhancement of the compensation compromising the case in
the Lok Adalat merits no consideration and the same is liable to be
rejected.
(vii) In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2/ Insurance Company contended that the Writ Petition filed by
the Petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
placed on record. During the pendency of the case, the Petitioners had
agreed to settle their claim case fully and finally for an amount of
Rs.l3,00,000/-. Accordingly, MAC Case No.15 of 2022 was put up
before the learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur in the Lok Adalat held on
13.05.2023. The learned Tribunal in presence of the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
claimants/Petitioners and the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company and their Advocates has passed the impugned order
directing the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company to deposit the
compromised amount of Rs.l3,00,000/- with the saving account
maintained by the learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur within a period of 2
months from the date of that order.
6. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2023, the Opposite
Party No.2/ Insurance Company had deposited the compromised
amount of Rs.l3,00,000/- with the account of the learned 2nd MACT
(ND), Sambalpur.
7. He further submitted that the learned 2nd MACT, Sambalpur has
erroneously passed the impugned order ignoring the compensation
attributable under the heading of "Future Prospect" which is
unsustainable in law in view of the fact that the Petitioners during the
pendency of their claim application which was registered as MAC
Case No.15 of 2022 had compromised the same with the competent
authority of the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company for
Rs.13,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of their claim and the
MAC Case No.15 of 2022 was disposed of on compromise in the Lok
Adalat held on 13.05.2023.
8. Learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order as agreed by the
Petitioners as well as their Advocate in presence of the Opposite Party
No.2/ Insurance Company and its Advocate without any coercion or
undue influence. Moreover, after investigation as well as verification
of all the relevant documents when it was found that the same were
found to be in order and dispute regarding liability was not there, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance Company agreed for amicable
settlement of the claim on compromise basis. After having discussion
with the Petitioners through their lawyer when the claimants /
Petitioners agreed for settlement of their claim for Rs.13,00,000/-
towards full and final satisfaction of their claim, the learned Tribunal
had recorded the compromise and pass the impugned order dated
13.05.2023 in presence of the Petitioners, their Advocate as well as in
presence of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ Insurance
Company.
9. Since, the Lok Adalat allowed the application in terms of settlement
arrived at between the parties and Section 21 provides that every
award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court
or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a
compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a
case referred to it the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in
the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870. Every award
made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to
the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.
10. This Court cannot set aside the award in a casual manner. The award
of Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the
facts recorded in such award as fraudulent arrived at. The Supreme
Court further in catena of judgments has observed that if the
signatures of the Plaintiffs have been obtained by fraud, then the
Court can interfere. Since in the present case there is absence of any
element of fraud, or the plaintiff failed to establish that any fraud was
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
practiced upon them. Having received their monetary compensation
the plaintiff relinquished their rights, title in respect of all such claim.
V. CONCLUSION:
11. The award passed in Lok Adalat with the consent of both the parties
and the amount settled has already been paid to the Petitioners,
therefore, the said award cannot be set aside only because the
Petitioners need more money. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to
be dismissed. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to
interfere with the award passed in the Lok Adalat. The Writ Petition
being without any substance is hereby dismissed.
12. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
