Divisional Manager,New India Assurance C0.LTD. Vs Martin Jojo

This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- MACT, Khurda on 26.08.2017 in MA.C.T. Case No.67 of 2008. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,34,446/- along with interest @ 9% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

¶14

Page 1 of 4.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that the award of interest @ 9 % per annum is on the higher side taking into account the rate of interest prevailing at the time of accident.

¶16

4.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal allowed compensation on the higher side on different counts which the Respondent-Injured is not entitled to get.

¶17

4.2. It is also contended that even though at the time of accident vehicle was not having valid permit, which was duly brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide Ext.C, but no right of recovery was allowed as against Owner/Respondent No.2.

¶18

4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court with right of recovery against the Owner/Respondent No.2.

¶19

Mr. T. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the ClaimantRespondent while supporting the impugned award contended that taking into account the disability of the injured, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation.

¶20

However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for the ClaimantRespondent contended that Claimant-Respondent will be fully satisfied, if this Court awards compensation to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest payable @ 6 % from the date of application till its realisation.

¶21

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the aforesaid proposition so laid by the learned counsel for the claimantRespondent leave it to the discretion of this Court.

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

7. Learned counsel appearing for Owner/Respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has not allowed right of recovery as Ext.C does not conclusively show that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. However, it is contended that if right of recovery will be allowed by this Court, then in the event of filing any application by the appellant, Owner/Respondent No.2 be given due opportunity of hearing.

¶24

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.26.08.2017 held the ClaimantRespondent entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest payable @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of application till its realisation with right of recovery as against Owner/Respondent No.2. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.2,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent No.1 proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 26.08.2017.

¶25

8.1. However, it is observed that if the compensation amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.2, 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment.

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

8.2. However, it is observed that in the event any such application is moved for recovery of the amount from the Owner-Respondent No.2, the Tribunal shall deal with the same in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Owner-Respondent.

¶28

8.3. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification.

¶29

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 07-Dec-2024 17:21:35

¶33

Page 4 of 4.

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance C0.LTD. v. Martin Jojo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance C0.LTD. v. Martin Jojo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Patra Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, S and Me Dept.

Gayatree Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Yudhisthira Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Prateek Rana Vs Secy., Bse

Bijayanand Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Silan Mishra Vs State of Odisha