Partly allowed

Sushila Das v. Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Orissa HC14 Feb 2023MACA/207/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment. The court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,56,000 plus 7% interest for death in a 2014 accident. The insurer's disputes regarding indemnity and compensation quantification were rejected. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount including interest within two months.

What did the court decide?

The insurer directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 5,56,000 plus 7% interest within two months; statutory deposit to be refunded thereafter.

Sushila Das Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.207 of 2020 & MACA No.527 of 2020

¶3

MACA No.207 of 2020
Sushila Das & Ors.

¶4

….
Appellants
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

….
Bulu Kumar Mohanty & Anr. Respondents
Mr. S.Roy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
MACA No.527 of 2020
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. …. Appellant
Mr. S.Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Sushila Das & Ors. …. Respondents
Mr. P.K.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
14.02.2023

¶7

Order No.

¶8

¶9

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶10

Heard Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶11

Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated 31^st October, 2019 passed by learned 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in MAC Case No. 283/3284 of 2014,

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.5,56,000/- has been granted along with interest @ 7 % per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 04/05.07.2014, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶14

Both parties dispute quantification of compensation amount. In addition to the same, the Insurer also disputes his liability to indemnify the amount of compensation contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle.

¶15

It is seen that the Tribunal has considered all such points vividly and while directing payment of the compensation amount by the Insurer, has further granted right of recovery in favour of the Insurer. In view of law settled on the point, I do not see any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in directing for payment of compensation by the insurance company with right of recovery. Further, computation of amount of compensation, which is derived adopting settled principles, is also confirmed by this Court.

¶16

Both the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Insurer to deposit the entire amount of compensation as directed by the learned Tribunal along with interest within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned award.

¶17

On deposit of the award amount before learned Tribunal and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund application

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

before this Court, the statutory deposit made in MACA No. 527 of 2020 before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company.

¶20

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶21

( B.P. Routray)

¶22

Judge

¶23

S.Das

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Sushila Das v. Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Das v. Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Mamata Pradhan

Manja Munda Vs Ravi Sondhi

Mamata Pradhan Vs Rajendra Pr.Maheswari

Ramswaroop Agarwal Vs Perminder Singh

Basanti Jena Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Jayanti Jena Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty