FAO/830/2026 of THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE, LEGAL CLAIMS SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BHUBANESWAR Vs PRAKASH SAHOO on 3 September 2026

ORDER

03.09.2026 I.A. No.831 of 2026

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since the amount in question in the

meantime has already been deposited, learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the I.A.

4. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Judge

// 2 //

I.A. No.1024 of 2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Even though notice of the I.A as well as appeal has not yet been issued to Respondent No.2, but since it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and claimant- Respondent No.1 that the matter has been settled, this Court in absence of notice on Respondent No.2 is inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and condone the same accordingly.

4. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.

Judge FAO No.830 of 2026

03. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation –cum - Joint Labour Commissioner, HQRS, Bhubaneswar in E.C. Case No.07 of 2024. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the Claimant-Respondent No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.15,75,517/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of order failing

// 3 //

which appellant will be liable to pay 50% penalty along with interest.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that learned Commissioner committed error in holding that Respondent No.1 sustained injury in course of his employment under Respondent No.2, while discharging his duty as a helper in the Mini Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-06-B-3955. Since no F.I.R or any police case was instituted before any police station by Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 owner of the Truck about the accident it clearly proves that the alleged insured Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-06-B-3955, has been planted by Respondent No.1, in connivance with Respondent No.2.

3.1. Learned Commissioner also committed wrong in holding the Respondent No.1 to be a workman as defined under the E.C Act and that the accident arose in course of his employment under Respondent No.2, when owner of the Mini Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-06-B-3955, was already dead and Respondent No.2 neither filed any document nor laid any evidence in support of the engagement of Respondent No.1 under him.

3.2. Learned Commissioner committed error in discarding the evidence of OPW-2, examined on behalf of the appellant, thereby not holding that Respondent No.1 has filed a fake and fabricated case to grab illegal compensation, as no FIR was lodged before any police station.

3.3. Learned Commissioner also erred in holding the loss of earning capacity of the Respondent No.1 at 85% for

// 4 //

sustaining fracture injuries. Learned commissioner also erred in assessing the monthly wages of the Respondent No.1 at Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of the alleged accident. Learned Commissioner also erred in directing the appellant to pay penalty @ 50% with penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount, from the date of accident if the same is not paid within 30 days from the date of judgment, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3.4. It is accordingly contended that had the learned Commissioner would have appreciated the contentions so raised by the Appellant-Claimant, the compensation could have been assessed at a lower side.

3.5. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court

4. Even though Mr. K.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants-Respondent No.1 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.10,50,000/- consolidated in favour of Respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimants- Respondents No.1 leave the same to the discretion of this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, held the

// 5 //

Claimants-Respondents No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.10,50,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimants-Respondents No.1 within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with accrued interest, if any, on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the payment. The balance amount along with accrued interest, if any, be released in favour of the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Judge

Subrat

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:17:15 Signature Not Verified