Allowed

Bhagabati Tandi v. M/S.Tuli Construction Conmpany

Orissa HC1 Aug 2024FAO/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against a fresh compensation award passed after the Commissioner recalled his earlier award. Holding the Commissioner became functus officio after the first award, the High Court set aside the fresh award, restored the earlier quantum against the insurer with 12% interest from the date of accident, waiving penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 18.04.2017 set aside; insurer directed to pay Rs.4,39,900/- compensation with 12% interest from date of accident; penal interest waived.

Bhagabati Tandi Vs M/S.Tuli Construction Conmpany — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.103 of 2018

¶3

…. Bhagabati Tandi and others Appellants Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. M/s.Tuli Construction Company, Respondents Bargarh and another

¶6

Mr. S. Hota, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 01.08.2024

Order No.

Heard Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellantsclaimants, Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel for Respondent No.1employer and Mr. B. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company.

¶13

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 18.04.2017 passed in E.C. Case No.25 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,05,613/- has been granted to the claimants-Appellants on account of death of the deceased in course of and arising out of his employment as a driver in the Truck bearing Regd. No.OR15-6273 belonging to Respondent No.1.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 02-Aug-2024 15:03:35

¶17

The claimants filed W.C. Case No.25/2004 praying for compensation. In the said case, they adduced their evidence and the Insurance Company as well as the owner both have contested it. Upon adjudication, the Commissioner disposed of the claim case vide judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.4,39,900/- payable by the employer. Subsequently, the employer filed a recall petition appending a valid insurance policy of the vehicle in which the deceased was an employee. The Commissioner upon accepting the recall application passed a fresh award granting compensation to the tune of Rs.3,05,613/- without discussing anything about quantum of compensation granted in favour of the claimants in the earlier award. Such approach of the Commissioner to pass a fresh award by recalling the earlier award upon his whim is unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶18

As per Mr. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, once the award is passed by the Commissioner, he became functus officio and therefore, he has no authority to proceed further in the matter. Such argument advanced by Mr. Mohapatra has substance and this Court taking note of the conduct of the Commissioner in proceeding to pass a fresh award, sets aside the award dated 18.04.2017.

¶19

Admittedly, the coverage of insurance in respect of death of the deceased as an employee of the truck on the date of accident is not disputed by the Insurance Company. The validity of the

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 02-Aug-2024 15:03:35

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Insurance Certificate is left unquestioned. Thus the liability on the part of the Insurance Company is confirmed. As the Commissioner has determined the quantum in his award dated 27.9.2010 assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and applying the age factor of 219.95, this Court does find any reason to interfere in determination of the amount of compensation and confirms the same with direction to the insurer to pay the compensation amount along with interest @12% per annum from the date of accident.

¶24

It is mentioned here that, the insurer has never questioned either of the awards, which implies that they have neither disputed the accident nor the employment of the deceased as concluded by the Commissioner.

¶25

The direction of the Commissioner to pay the penal interest @12% is waived.

¶26

The appeal is disposed of as allowed.

¶27

An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶28

( B.P. Routray)

¶29

B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 02-Aug-2024 15:03:35

Bhagabati Tandi v. M/S.Tuli Construction Conmpany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagabati Tandi v. M/S.Tuli Construction Conmpany

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

Divisional Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Lata Sahu

Manager Legal (T.P. Huv), M/S. New India Assurnce Co. Ltd. Vs Dipu Dehuri

Prabodh Das Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sarbeswar Sahu

D.M,Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bijaya Jena

Sudarshan Mishra Vs State of Odisha