D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Mala Dangri

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.02 of 2016 dated 25^th January, 2018.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Respondent-claimant no. 1 to 6 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 the threshold.

¶19

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

¶20

Page 2 of 3.

¶21

to 6 in proposition, as has been mentioned in the ordering portion in the impugned award.

¶22

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.

¶23

The learned Tribunal is directed to reapportion the awarded amount amongst the surviving claimants, i.e. Respondent No. 1 to 6, on production of a copy of today’s order before the learned Tribunal. In any event all 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

¶24

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

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶27

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

¶28

Page 3 of 3.

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput v. Mala Dangri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput v. Mala Dangri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Bishnu Charan Sahoo Vs Integrated Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar

M/S.Tata Aig G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Ful Kumari Devi

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Surekha Khosla

Manasmita Pradhan Vs Sanjukta Routray