Orissa High Court
MACA/374/2018 of MANAGER,M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs GITA DHIBAR on 27 August 2026
of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.374 of 2018 CNR No. ODHC010040542018 The Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - Miss Mitalee Jesthi -versus- Gita Dhibar & Ors. ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s. Akshaya Ku. Sahoo (for R-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.374 of 2018
CNR No. ODHC010040542018
The Manager, M/s.Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.
.....
Appellant
Represented by Adv. -
Miss Mitalee Jesthi
-versus-
Gita Dhibar & Ors.
.....
Respondents
Represented by Adv. -
M/s. Akshaya Ku. Sahoo
(for R-1 & R-2)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
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
27.08.2026 Order No. I.A No.837 of 2018
10.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. This is an application with a prayer for condonation of delay.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that there exists a delay of 57 days in presentation of the appeal.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company, the delay of 57 days in the presentation of the appeal is condoned subject to payment of a cost of Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred) to the claimant-Respondents.
5. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. MACA No.374 of 2018
6. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimant. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.
7. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, The appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court thereby challenging the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Deogarh in MAC Case No.22 of 2016-68 of 2017. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,43,000/- along with @ 6% from the date of filing of application, i.e., 26.04.2016.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the learned Tribunal while assessing his income and the consequential quantum of total compensation awarded to the claimants. In the aforesaid context, she further submitted that the deceased, who was working with a tent house as a coolie. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the deceased, who has been treated as an unskilled labour and, accordingly, a lesser amount has been assessed as monthly income of the deceased. She further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an illegality by taking into consideration Rs.220/- as his daily income and, accordingly, arrived at a monthly income of Rs.6600/- and, consequentially, annual income of Rs.79200/-. On such basis, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,43,000/- which is grossly erroneous.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimant, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment dated 31.10.2017 thereby awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimant wholly supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal though the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents brought to the notice of this Court that no amount has been awarded on the ground of loss of future prospect, however he fairly admitted that the claimants have not filed any appeal challenging the said part of the judgment.
10. Taking into rival contentions, further on a careful scrutiny of the background facts as well as on a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2017 and taking note of the fact that the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as the owner have not laid any evidence before the learned Tribunal and the present appeal being confined to merely quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without interfering with the impugned award dated 31.10.2017.
11. Accordingly, the Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount, if not already deposited, before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. Further, on production of a copy of the acknowledgment
evidencing deposit of the aforesaid awarded amount, the statutory deposit along with the accrued interest be returned to the Appellant- Insurance Company.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Aug-2026 15:00:14 Signature Not Verified