Partly allowed

Divisional Office,Oriental House v. Debaraj Behera

Orissa HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/18356/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner Insurance Company challenged an award by a District Permanent Lok Adalat ordering it to pay damages for cyclone storm damage to a building. The Court did not interfere with the quantum of the award but modified the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner to pay Rs.5,23,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 21.03.2014 within two months; the writ petition allowed in part for modification of interest.

Divisional Office,Oriental House Vs Debaraj Behera — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18356 of 2016

¶2

Divisional Office, Oriental …. Petitioner House, Bhubaneswar

¶3

M/s R. Pati, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Debaraj Behera and Ors. Opposite Parties Mr. B.B. Swain, Adv. (for O.P.1)

¶6

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶7

Order ORDER No. 11.09.2023 1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2 . In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner/ Insurance Company assails the orders dated 28.07.2014 and 11.05.2016 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam in P.L.A. Case No.96 of 2014.

¶8

¶9

3 . In this Case, the Opposite Party No.1, being the owner of the premises appertaining to plot No.2088/7512 of Khata No.1744/96 located at Sidhartha Nagar, 1^st lane, Berhampur, had filed P.L.A. No.96 of 2014 before the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- having sustained loss for the damages caused to his building when the installed

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

Telecom Tower on the terrace uprooted and fallen apart in the night of 12.10.2013.

¶15

4 . It was the case of the Opposite Party No.1 before the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam that he is the owner of the terrace house located at Sidhartha Nagar, 1^st Lane, Berhampur. The Opposite Party No.2/ Reliance Telecom Ltd. in order to install a telecom tower with DG set on the terrace of the building of the Opposite Party No.1 had entered into a Lease Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.01.2007. It was also the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Opposite Party No.2 and all its subsidiary/associate/affiliated companies were insured with the Petitioner vide Policy No.124500/11/2014/10 covering the risk including comprehensive telecom network policy to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was alleged that in the night of 12.10.2013 when the insurance was in force, the mobile tower installed with the entrance get uprooted due to severe cyclone storm Phailin causing extensive damage to the building of the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 further pleaded that the fact of damage was intimated to the present Opposite Party No.2 for making assessment by a Chartered Engineer. After repeated approach the Opposite Party Page 2 of 6

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

No.2 provided a copy of the Insurance Policy said to have been issued by the present Petitioner and asked him to approach the Petitioner to get compensation for the loss sustained by him.

¶20

5 . It was the further case of the Opposite Party No.1 that though legal notice was issued to the present Petitioner and as the matter was not settled, he approached the Opposite Party No.3 for getting compensation for the loss sustained to his building.

¶21

6 . In response to the notice in the proceedings before the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its' written statement. Since the Opposite Party No.1 impleaded the Petitioner's Divisional Office at Oriental House, 4^th Floor, 7-J, Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai, Maharastra, the present Petitioner could not know about the proceeding for which the matter was heard ex parte.

¶22

7 . The Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam taking into account pleadings of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and documentary evidence produced by them came to a conclusion that the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is clear and there is no hinge or loop to hang a doubt and thereby allowed the claim of the applicant/Opposite

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

Party No.1 and directed the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs.5,23,200/- along with interest @ 9% from 21.03.14 till the date of actual realization vide order dated 28.07.2014.

¶28

8 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that upon receipt of the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam, the Petitioner's Mumbai office intimated the present Petitioner who upon verification of its record noticed that after the occurrence /Phailin, the Opposite Party No.1 had not made any claim before it and also the Opposite Party No.2 did not inform about the alleged loss sustained by the Opposite Party No.1 to this present Petitioner at any point of time. Since the present Petitioner did not get any opportunity either for admitting or disowning its liability, the Petitioner upon receipt of the order from the Mumbai Office appeared before the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam and filed a petition on 25.03.2015 for setting aside the award dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam and to allow the Petitioner to contest the case in the interest of justice.

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

¶32

// 5 //

¶33

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the said petition was taken up on 11.05.2016 for hearing. The Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam without assigning any cogent reason while rejecting the Petition of the Petitioner awarded cost of Rs.3000/- payable in favour of the District Legal Services Authority, Ganjam. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the rate of interest fixed in the impugned award is exorbitant.

¶34

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam has considered all the aspects relevant for the purpose of awarding compensation in favour of the Opposite Party No.1. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same. He, therefore, contended that this Writ Petition should be dismissed.

¶35

11. Having considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and on applying the judicious mind carefully on the materials available on records, this Court does not want to interfere with the award passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam. However, this Court inclines to modify the rate of interest

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

¶39

// 6 //

¶40

fixed over the awarded amount to be paid by the Petitioner from 21.03.2014.

¶41

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in Part. The award dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ganjam has ordered to the respondent/ Petitioner- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.5,23,200/- to the applicant/ Opposite Party No.1

¶42

towards damage to 3^rd party properties under the Insurance Policy No.124500/11/2014/10 and the respondent/ Petitioner- Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 6% which has been modified from 9 % p.a. from the date of such application i.e. 21.03.2014 till the date of actual realization.

¶43

13. It is made clear that the entire amount be paid to the applicant/Opposite Party No.1 within a period of two months from today.

¶44

14 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶46

B.Jhankar

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 13-Sep-2023 17:26:38

Divisional Office,Oriental House v. Debaraj Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Office,Oriental House v. Debaraj Behera

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

The Divisional Manager, M/S. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Durgi Murmu

Puspalata Mishra Vs J.Somanath

Basanti Sethi Vs Jayanta Ku.Swain

Banalata Panda Vs State of Orissa

Sankar Bahadur @ Shankar Bahadur Vs State of Odisha

Nasim Akhtar Vs State of Odisha