Remanded

Tapan Kr.Majhi v. Debal Ku.Mishra

Orissa HC14 Oct 2025MACA/1189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed against a motor accident compensation award of Rs.1,41,000 with 9% interest, contending the tribunal ignored the insurance policy on record and wrongly fastened liability on the owner. The High Court remanded the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication with directions to dispose it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal remanded to the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore for fresh adjudication; parties directed to appear on 10.11.2025; pending I.As. disposed.

Tapan Kr.Majhi Vs Debal Ku.Mishra — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No. 1189 of 2016

¶3

Tapan Kumar Majhi

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. B. Singh, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1. Mr. Debal Kumar Mishra

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, represented by Divisional Manager, Cuttack

¶10

Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate (R-2)

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

Order No.

14.10.2025

15 . 1. Heard learned counsel for the AppellantClaimant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶16

The Appellant–Claimant assailing the Judgment dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned 3^rd M.A.C.T, Balasore in M.A.C No.103/49 of 2023/2011 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, which is to be recovered from the Respondent No.1- owner of

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

the offending vehicle. The Claimant has further prayed to direct the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.

¶19

The case of the Claimant is that on 25.10.2010 while he got into the bus near Nuagan market area, the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and was shifted to the hospital for treatment. As such, claim application was filed, claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. In such claim application, the owner of the offending bus was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, who was Opposite Party No.2, appeared and filed its written statement opposing the claim.

¶20

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;

¶21

“i) Is the petitioner entitled to compensation and If so, to what amount and from whom?

¶22

ii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?”

¶23

In order to substantiate his stand, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and seven documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 7-series along with the xerox copy of Insurance Policy, marked as X.

¶24

On the contrary, one witness was examined as OPW.1 and four documents were exhibited and

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

marked as Exts. A to D on behalf of the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶27

On consideration of the materials on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application i.e. 01.03.2011 till realization.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Appellant that though the Insurance Policy was on record and being marked as „X‟, ignoring the same, the liability has been saddled on the owner. As such, since the Claimant is prejudiced, the matter merits interference of this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Mahali submits that on a bare reading of the reasoning of the learned Tribunal, there is no patent error and in fact, initially the details of the Insurance Policy was wrongly stated for which the learned Tribunal is right in shifting the liability on to the owner.

¶30

On considering the rival submissions and taking into account the Insurance Policy being marked as „X‟, this Court is persuaded to hold that interest of justice would be sub served, if the matter is remanded to the learned 3^rd M.A.CT., Balasore for fresh adjudication.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Since the accident relates to 25.10.2010, the learned Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the Parties, in accordance with law and to cut short the delay, both the Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 10.11.2025 to receive further instruction.

¶33

The MACA is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

In view of disposal of MACA, the pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶36

Ayesha

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 16-Oct-2025 11:00:14

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Tapan Kr.Majhi v. Debal Ku.Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kr.Majhi v. Debal Ku.Mishra

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

Pandana Kumuda @ Gandana Vs State of Odisha

Krishnarao Pratang @ Kisanarao Patarang Vs State of Odisha

Ashis Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Askara Gochhaayat Vs Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Rasmi Ranjan Ray Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Marthi Vs State of Odisha