FAO/220/2025 of MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BBSR Vs TAPAN KUMAR ROUL @ TAPAN ROUL on 14 August 2026

ORDER

14.08.2026 Order No. 06 I.A. No. 401 of 2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. I.A. stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge

07. FAO No. 220 of 2025

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- Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Kataka in E.C. Case No.231-D of 2019 vide judgment dtd.30.12.2024. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.13,54,431/-.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that even though the Claimant claimed that he has sustained alleged injuries being dashed by an unknown truck, but no F.I.R. was lodged and no document was also filed in that regard. Hence it is to be held that a false case in connivance with the owner of the Truck to grab illegal compensation from the Insurance Company has been filed.

3.1. It is also contended that it is the admitted case of the Applicant that on the date of the accident the deceased/injured was riding a motor cycle and an unknown truck dashed against him because of which he had sustained injuries. In view of the provisions contained under Sec. 147(1) of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company-Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimant.

3.2. It is contended that after the accident the Injured applied for renewal of his D.L. and in compliance to the provisions contained under Rule 5 & 18 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, he also filed the Medical Fitness certificate before the competent authority, wherein it was found that he has not suffered any disability as well as consequential loss of earning capacity. In view of such step being taken by the deceased/injured Claimant, he is not entitled to get any compensation.

3.4. 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 contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.

4. Even though Mr. K.T. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated along with accrued interest on the compensation amount, if any.

5. To the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e), 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 Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- consolidated in favour of the substituted Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) 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.

7. 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: 18-Aug-2026 12:22:17 Signature Not Verified