Orissa High Court
FAO/286/2026 of M/S.CHOLA MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KHURDA Vs RANJAN KUMAR MAJHI on 3 September 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 286 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010038542026 M/s. Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Khurda ..... Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv. -versus- Ranjan Kumar Majhi & Anr. ..... Respondents Mr. D. Patnaik, Adv. Mr. A . Patra, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 286 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010038542026
M/s. Chola MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Khurda
.....
Appellant
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv.
-versus-
Ranjan Kumar Majhi & Anr. .....
Respondents
Mr. D. Patnaik, Adv.
Mr. A. Patra, Adv.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.09.2026
Order No.04 I.A. No. 52 of 2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard.
3. Even though this application has been filed with a prayer to dispense with the filing of the receipt, showing deposit of the awarded amount, but since in the meantime, the deposit has already been made, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not intend to press the I.A.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of as not pressed.
Judge
05. I.A. No. 555 of 2026
1. Heard.
Page 2 of 4.
2. Even though notice of the interim application 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 the 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 the appeal and condone the same accordingly.
3. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
Judge
6. FAO No. 286 of 2026
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
2. This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Jajpur in E.C. Case No.22 & 23 of 2019 vide judgment dtd.29.10.2025. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the legal heirs of the deceased Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.14,95, 410/-.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as the claimant on 22.08.2019, had gone to Joda on a motorcycle No. OD-34-H-3645 to bring the challan left by the driver, and while returning under Ghatagaon P.S., an unknown vehicle hit him from behind, the injury was not due to the accident caused by the insured Truck No. OD-16-B-8185. So, it cannot be said that the accident arose in course of employment of the claimant-Respondent No.1 as a helper under Respondent No.2.
3.1. Not only that the owner-Respondent No.2 had never paid any premium to cover the risk of the helper/applicant. The appellant- Insurer examined a witness and filed the policy, which clearly shows that only Rs. 50/- was paid towards premium under IMT- 40, which only covers the driver of the vehicle and not the helper.
3.2. Even assuming the liability, the Commissioner erred in holding 50% disability and 50% loss of earning capacity of the injured-Respondent No.1, when injuries were minor and no doctor was examined to prove the disability.
3.3. It is accordingly contended that had the learned Commissioner would have appreciated the contentions so raised by the Appellant, compensation would have been assessed at a lower side. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant-Respondent No.1 & Mr. A. Patra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant-Respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/- consolidated along with accrued interest on the compensation amount, if any.
5. To the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2, learned counsel for the Appellant 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 Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- consolidated in favour of Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with accrued interest on such amount, if any on proper identification. The residue amount along with accrued interest, if any, be released in favour of the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period.
7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
Judge
Jyoti
Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 08-Sep-2026 11:21:54 Signature Not Verified