D.M.,O.I.CO.LTD. vs MOHAN CH.NAYAK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.323 of 2008
CNR No. ODHC010033452008

(An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988).


Divisional Manager, the
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rourkela
… Appellant
-versus-

Mohan Chandra Nayak and
another
… Respondents



For Appellant : Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. P. Panda [R-1(b) &

1(c)]

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY


DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:30.10.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.
MACA No.323 of 2008 & Misc. Case No. 1351 of 2011
1. This judgment shall dispose of not only the Misc.
Case No. 1351 of 2011 filed by the Appellant for condonation
of delay of 52 days, but also the Appeal on merit.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (In short “the
insurer”) challenging the impugned judgment dated
st
02.01.2008 passed by the learned 1 Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Keonjhar (In short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case

MACA No.323 of 2008 Page 1 of 5

No.258 of 2004, wherein the insurer was directed to pay a
sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the claimant- herein together with
simple interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of claim
till realization of the compensation.
3. The facts in this case, being largely not disputed
is not reiterated to avoid repetition, but the main challenge
of the insurer as advanced in the course of hearing is to the
interest component on the compensation. The appeal has
been filed by the insurer with a delay of 52 days, but the
ground as put-forth for condonation of delay in Misc. Case
No. 1351 of 2011 as filed by the insurer are as under: -
“(4) That the order/judgment under challenge was
passed on dt.02.01.2008 and the free copy was
received by the petitioner’s Division Office at
Keonjhar in the month of February, 2008.

(5) That the petitioner after receiving the copy of
the same sent to the conducting counsel in the
court below for legal opinion and after obtaining
the legal opinion forwarded the entire case
records to the Regional Office at Bhubaneswar in
the month of March, 2008.

(6) That the legal department of the Regional
Office immediately prepared the note and put up
the file before his higher authority to take a
decision on preferring an appeal before this
Hon'ble Court and thereafter the present counsel
was engaged on dt. 23.04.08 to file the appeal.


MACA No.323 of 2008 Page 2 of 5

(7) That after receiving the case record from the
appellant the present counsel after going through
the case records prepared the memorandum of
appeal and filed the same on dt. 23.05.08 and in
the process there is some delay in filing the
present appeal.

(8) That the delay in filing this appeal is neither
intentional nor deliberate and was beyond the
control of the petitioner. Furthermore, there are
good grounds and have effective substantial
question of law to be decided by this Hon’ble
Court while adjudicating the aforesaid appeal.

4. Heard, Mr. Nayan Bihari Das, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Parsuram Panda, learned counsel for
R-1(b) & 1(c) in the matter and perused the record.
5. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid averments as
taken by the insurer for condonation of delay appears to be
not only unconvincing, but also lacks precise details as to the
grounds for condoning the delay. Besides, this is an appeal
of the year 2008 which challenges the impugned judgment
passed by the learned tribunal on 02.01.2008 for a claim of
the year 2004 with accident taking place on 13.10.2004 and
this Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to overturn
the decision of the tribunal after a gap of around 22 years of
the date of the accident by condoning the delay. No doubt,
there is a delay of small duration, but the delay defeats the
MACA No.323 of 2008 Page 3 of 5

equity and it is, thereby, not advisable to condone the delay
at such length of time, which is after a gap 18 years of filing
this Appeal. However, during the course of hearing of the
appeal, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the
insurer that the interest component on the compensation is
bit higher which is acknowledged by Mr. Parsuram Panda,
learned counsel for R1(b) & (c), who by filing a memo in
Court today submits that R1(b) & (c) who are the LRs of
original claimant-cum-Respondent have no objection, if the
interest on the compensation amount is reduced to 6 % from
9 % as per award dated 02.01.2008 passed by the learned
st
1 MACT, Keonjhar.
6. In view of the aforesaid developments and on
consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court
does not consider it proper to condone the delay and admit
the appeal, but at the same time, taking into account the
concession made on behalf of R1(b) & (c) reduce the
interest component on compensation to 6% per annum w.e.f
date of filing of the claim till its realization. Hence, the Misc.
Case No. 1351 of 2011 filed by the Appellant for condonation
of delay of 52 days is, hereby, dismissed

MACA No.323 of 2008 Page 4 of 5

7. In the result, the delay being not condoned, the
appeal stands dismissed as barred by law of limitation at the
admission stage, but the interest as awarded by the learned
tribunal on compensation is reduced to 6 % per annum and
the insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount to
the claimants together with simple interest @ 6% per annum
w.e.f date of filing of claim till its realization to the claimants
within eight weeks hence. The statutory deposit together
with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back upon
receipt of proof of deposit of compensation amount before
the learned Tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 30 day of October, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 31-Oct-2026 15:49:21
MACA No.323 of 2008 Page 5 of 5