FAO/897/2026 of M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,KHURDA Vs NIRMALA DEVI on 14 August 2026

ORDER

14.08.2026 I.A. No.1026 of 2026

1.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard.

3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. Since it is contended that the matter has been settled in between the appellant and claims-respondents, in absence of any notice being issued by this Court to Respondent No.7, this Court is inclined to condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.1500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) to be deposited before the Juvenile Justice Fund by 21.08.2026.

5. The I.A stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

// 2 //

2. FAO NO.897 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.53 of 2024. Vide the said judgment dtd.10.12.2025, learned Commissioner held the Claimant-Respondent entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.16,57,530/- along with interest @ 12% per annum i.e. Rs.2,75,139/- total amount of Rs.19,32,669/- 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 there is no material on record to prove that there is employer and employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.7, owner of the vehicle.

3.1. It is also contended that without having any documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased being produced by the claimants, learned Commissioner should not have taken the minimum wages of the deceased at Rs.600/- per day which is on the higher side. It is also contended that own damage claim has already been settled by the SVC, Sambalpur.

// 3 //

3.2. 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.

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

4. Even though Mr. D. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents supported the impugned judgment, but contended that Claimants- Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation amount of Rs.14,50,000/- consolidated in favour of Respondents 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 left 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-Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.14,50,000/- consolidated along with accrued interest if any. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- consolidated in favour of the Claimants-

// 4 //

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.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

sangita Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatio of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 19-Aug-2026 13:39:29 Signature Not Verified