D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Surekha Khosla — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2026)

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Surekha Khosla — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal stands disposed of at the admission stage by consent: interest on the Tribunal's award reduced from 7% to 6% per annum, the rest of the award remaining intact; Respondent No.5 deleted from the cause title and brief; learned Tribunal to reapportion the awarded amount amongst surviving claimant-respondents 1 to 4 and take consequential steps within eight weeks; statutory deposit to be refunded to the owner of the vehicle on proper application after payment of the compensation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law by awarding interest @7% per annum on the compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-, warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Court's answer

Upon joint agreement of counsel for both sides and disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the interest awarded @7% per annum in the award/judgment dated 25.01.2018 is modified to 6%; the rest of the award remains intact.

Ratio / Principle

Since Respondent No.5 has died, the learned Tribunal is directed to reapportion the awarded amount amongst the surviving claimants, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on production of a copy of the order; all consequential steps to be taken within eight weeks of communication of the order; and on payment of the compensation, the statutory deposit is to be refunded to the owner of the vehicle on proper application.

Key takeaways

There being no necessity to substitute Respondent No.5 — Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the legal heirs and the Respondent No.5 being substantially represented by the other Respondents, with no objection from the Appellant — office is directed to delete Respondent No.5 from the cause title as well as the brief.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Compensation Appeal (MACA No.562 of 2018) — D.I.G., BSF, Koraput, owner of the Government vehicle, appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 25.01.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-4th M.A.C.T., Koraput in M.A.C. No.01 of 2016, whereby the claimant-respondents were granted total compensation of Rs.10,52,800/- with interest @7% per annum from 11.01.2016 (date of application) till realisation. At the admission stage, counsel for both sides agreed to reduction of interest to 6% and to disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the matter pending since 2018. The Court modified the award only to the extent of reducing the interest to 6%, leaving the rest intact. A memo reported the death of Respondent No.5 during pendency; Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the legal heirs, Respondent No.5 was deleted from the cause title and brief without substitution, and the learned Tribunal was directed to reapportion the awarded amount amongst the surviving claimants and complete consequential steps within eight weeks, with refund of the statutory deposit to the vehicle owner on payment. Appeal stands disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.562 of 2018 CNR No. ODHC010258262018

D.i.g. Bsf,koraput

..... Appellant

Represented by Adv. - Mr.a.k.bose(asst.solicitor G.i.of India(o.h.c.),m/s Durga Prasad Pattnaik(cgc)

-versus-

1) SUREKHA KHOSLA

1. PAYAL KHOSLA

1. SANGITA KHOSLA

1. HARI KHOSLA

..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/S D.MUND, R.K.ACHARYA, P.K.BEHERA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

30.07.2026

Order No.

10.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents at the outset files a memo dated 30.07.2026 indicating therein that the Respondent No.5 has died in the meantime. The memo is taken on record. In support of such contentions, he files a xerox copy of the death certificate dated 5^th December, 2016 issued by the competent authority which indicates that such death has taken place on 25.11.2026. He further submitted that since the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Respondent No.5, there is no necessity to substitute Respondent No.5 as the Respondent No.5 has been substantially represented by the other Respondents. Learned counsel for the Appellant has no objection to the same. Accordingly, office is directed to delete the Respondent No.5 from

Page 1 of 4.

the cause title as well as the brief.

The present appeal has been filed at the instance of the D.I.G., BSF, Koraput, who is the owner of the Government vehicle, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment/award dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge –cum-4^th M.A.C.T., Koraput in M.A.C. No.01 of 2016 dated 25^th January, 2018.

Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law by awarding 7% interest while allowing the claim of the claimantrespondent. He further contended that there are no other errors on the award passed by the learned Tribunal. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant, while challenging the award, referred to several grounds taken in the appeal memo. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is required to be interfered with by this Court, in excise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-claimant no. 1 to 4 on the other hand contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality by passing the impugned award. He further submitted on an analysis of the evidence gathered from both sides, the claim of the claimant-respondent has been allowed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant contended before this Court that the appeal preferred by the appellant-owner is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same ought to be dismissed at

Page 2 of 4.

the threshold.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the Respondents, this Court examined the contentions raised and the grounds taken by the Appellant for admission of the appeal. On a careful consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on a close scrutiny of the impugned award dated 25.01.2018, this Court found that the learned Tribunal while disposing of the claim case awarded the total compensation of Rs.10,52,800/- along with an interest @7% per annum from the date of the application i.e. from 11.01.2016 till realization of such amount from the Appellant. The awarded amount has also been apportioned amongst the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in proposition, as has been mentioned in the ordering portion in the impugned award, though the respondent no.5 has died in the meantime.

Upon hearing the matter at the stage of admission, both counsels for Appellant as well as the Respondents agreed that in the event the interest is reduced to 6% from 7% they will have no objection to the same and, it was also agreed that the matter can be disposed of in the spirit of Lok Adalat as the same is pending since 2018. In view of such agreement, this Court modifies the award/judgment dated 25.01.2018 to the extent that the interest which has been awarded @7% shall now be 6%. Rest of the award shall remain intact.

Since the Respondent No.5 has died, the learned Tribunal is directed to reapportion the awarded amount amongst the surviving claimants, i.e. Respondent No. 1 to 4, on production of a copy of today’s order before the learned Tribunal. In any event all

Page 3 of 4.

consequential steps be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order to the learned Tribunal. It is further clarified that on payment of the compensation award amount to the claimant, the statutory deposit made be refunded to the owner of the vehicle on proper application

With the aforesaid observation and direction and modification, the appeal strands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Sisir

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 31-Jul-2026 17:54:13

Page 4 of 4.