Orissa High Court
FAO/493/2025 of MANAGER-IN-CHARGE, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,SAMBALPUR Vs MITU BARIK on 28 August 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 493 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010817502025 Manager-in-Charge, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Sambalpur ..... Appellant Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate -versus- Mitu Barik & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 493 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010817502025
Manager-in-Charge, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Sambalpur
.....
Appellant
Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Mitu Barik & Ors.
.....
Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
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
28.08.2026 Order No. 04
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Perused the office note. Since notice has come back from Respondent No. 3 with postal endorsement “Addressee Refused”, notice against the said Respondent is treated as sufficient.
3. Heard Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
4. This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Kendujhar in E.C. Case No.05 of 2019 vide judgment dtd.15.09.2025. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.20,70,000/-.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that while assessing the award, learned Commissioner without having any evidence or written statement, wrongly held the employee-employer relationship in absence of the Owner, which is contrary to the provisions contained under Sec. 3(1) of EC Act. It is also contended that learned Commissioner wrongly held the deceased as a driver without having any driving licence.
5.1. It is also contended that even if the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident, but while assessing the compensation learned Commissioner by wrongly holding the age of the deceased at 20 years and by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- without any proof, calculated the compensation on the higher side.
5.2. It is also contended that the learned Commissioner while awarding the compensation, awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of passing of judgment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5.3. It is accordingly contended that had the learned Commissioner would have appreciated the contentions so raised by the Appellant, compensation amount would have been assessed at a lower side. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.
6. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.17,00,000/- consolidated along with accrued interest on the compensation amount, if any.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while leaving the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No. 3.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, held the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.17,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimants-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. The balance amount along with accrued interest, if any, be released in favour of the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period.
8.1. However, this Court is inclined to allow right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 3. Since this Court in absence of Owner-Respondent No. 3 is allowing right of recovery, it is observed that if any such application is moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No. 3, the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3.
9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 10:48:21 Signature Not Verified