FAO/377/2025 of THE MANAGER LEGAL, M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,BBSR Vs UDAYA KUMAR BHOI on 28 August 2026

ORDER

28.08.2026

I.A. No.736 of 2025

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

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 Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of as withdrawn. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

// 2 //

02. FAO No.377 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel 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, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.253 of 2023. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the Claimant-Respondent No.1 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.19,57,496/- 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 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 while holding the disability as well as the loss of earning capacity of the applicant at 80% on the basis of evidence of PW-2, particularly when the said order is not treating doctor of the applicant on the date of accident. PW-2 admitted that the applicant was examined on 15.07.2024, which is nearly two years two months after the alleged accident and as such the findings of the learned Commissioner with regard to the loss of earning capacity, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

3.1. It is submitted by the appellant that applicant due to the alleged accident, the applicant sustained fracture injury on his left leg. PW-2 examined the applicant nearly two years two months after the alleged accident. But, learned Commissioner without assessing the whole body functional

// 3 //

disability keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another) reported in (2011) 1 SCC-343 wrongly held that the applicant has sustained loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80%.

3.2. It is also contended that award of interest @12% per annum from the date of accident till passing of the judgment is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 4(A) of the Employees Compensation Act. Similarly, levy of penalty @ 50% is also not sustainable in the eye of law.

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

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

4. Even though Mr. D. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants- Respondents No.1 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- 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.

// 4 //

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, held the Claimants-Respondents Nos.1 &

entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimants-Respondents Nos.1 & 2 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. 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.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Aug-2026 12:42:19 Signature Not Verified