Orissa High Court
FAO/889/2026 of THE MANAGER (LEGAL) T.P HUBS, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR Vs SRIMATI DEVI on 25 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.889 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010537752026 The Manager (Legal), T.P. Hubs, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Mr. S.N.Nayak, Adv. -versus- Srimati Devi & Others …. Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. (for Res. Nos.1 & 2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.889 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010537752026
The Manager (Legal), T.P.
Hubs, Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar
….
Appellant
Mr. S.N.Nayak, Adv.
-versus-
Srimati Devi & Others
….
Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
(for Res. Nos.1 & 2)
COROM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order No
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
25.08.2026 I.A. No.1177 of 2026
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This application has been filed seeking grant of time to make the deposit before the learned Commissioner.
4. Since in the meantime, the amount has already been deposited, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not intend to press the I.A.
5. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of as not pressed.
Judge
2. I.A. No.1176 of 2026
1. Heard.
2. Even though notice of the I.A has not been issued, but considering the submission made by the learned counsel
// 2 //
appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the matter has been settled, this court in absence of any notice being issued to Respondent No.3, is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. The I.A accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
3. FAO NO.889 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, Jagatsinghpur in E.C. Case No.32 of 2023. Vide the said judgment dtd.27.04.2026, learned Commissioner held the Claimants-Respondents No.1 &
entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.11,22,525/ along with interest @ 12% per annum i.e. Rs.3,43,114/- total amount of Rs.14,65,639/-within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of order.
3. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the deceased was residing along with his family at Rourkela and the accident took place at Barpali and post mortem of the deceased was conducted at Rajgangpur Govt. Hospital, Rajgangpur. Since there is no proof that the deceased was residing at Jagatsinghpur, learned Commissioner, Jagatsinghpur should have rejected the claim application on the ground of jurisdiction.
// 3 //
3.1. It is also contended that there is no material available on record to show that there is employer and employee relationship in between the deceased and Respondent No.3-owner of the vehicle. It is also contended that Respondent No.3 has failed to produce the muster roll and wage register to establish that the deceased was employed under Respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle to drive the alleged vehicle. Hence, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay any compensation.
3.2. It is accordingly contended that had the learned Commissioner would have appreciated the contentions so raised by the Appellant, compensation could have been assessed at a lower side.
3.3. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.
4. Even though Mr. P.K Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants- Respondents No.1 & 2 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.13,30,000/- consolidated in favour of Respondents No.1 & 2 along with accrued interest on the said sum.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimants Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 left 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 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 13,30,000/ consolidated along with accrued interest if any so accrued from the date of deposit of the awarded amount till its disbursement. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimants-Respondents within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with accrued interest, if any. Residue amount along with accrued interest if any, be released in favour of the appellant-company within the aforesaid time period also.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Judge
sangita Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 31-Aug-2026 19:31:15 Signature Not Verified