FAO/36/2026 of MANAGER(LEGAL), ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR Vs SURESH MAHARANA on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026 Order No. 07 I.A. No. 130 of 2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard.

3. Perused the office note. Since notice has come back from Respondent No. 3 after valid service, notice against the said Respondent is treated as sufficient.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

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

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

Judge

08. FAO No. 36 of 2026

1. Heard.

2. Perused the office note. Since on the face of service of notice on Respondent No. 3, nobody has entered appearance, notice against the said Respondent is treated as sufficient.

3. This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum- Joint Labour Commissioner, Kataka in E.C. Case No.264 of 2024 vide judgment dtd.10.10.2025. Vide the said judgment, learned Commissioner held the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.8,95,030/-.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that since for the self-same cause of action, Claimants have already filed MAC Case No. 239 of 2024 before the learned MACT, Bhubaneswar, the award passed by the learned Commissioner in E.C. Case No. 264 of 2024 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.1. It is also contended that even though there is no proof of master and servant relationship, but learned Commissioner wrongly came to a finding the accident occurred in course of employment. It is also contended that since neither the Claimants nor the Owner have filed any documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased, the Commissioner should not have held the income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the higher side.

4.2. 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.

5. Even though Mr. D. Pattnaik, 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.5,00,000/- consolidated along with accrued interest on the compensation amount, if any.

6. To the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2, learned counsel for the Appellant leave the same to the discretion of this Court.

7. 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.5,00,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs learned Commissioner to release an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- 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. 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 12:20:40 Signature Not Verified