D.M.,O.I.CO.LTD. vs BAISTAMA TUDU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.914 of 2005

CNR No. ODHC010424222018
(An appeal Under Section-173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988).

Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar
… Appellant
-versus-
Baistama Tudu @ Majhi &
Others
… Respondents


For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

For Respondents : None
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 04.11.2026 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.
MACA NO.914 OF 2005 AND MISC.CASE NO.811 OF 2006
1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
Appeal on merit, but also MC No.811 of 2006 filed by
the learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) U/S.5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in
preferring the appeal to challenge the impugned
st
judgment dated 29.06.2005 passed by the learned 1
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in MAC Case
No.285 of 1993 directing the insurer to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to the claimants-cum-R-1 & 2 within 45
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 1 of 7

days failing which the award shall carrying interest @
9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the claim
application till its actual realization.
2. The facts being largely undisputed are not
reiterated in extenso to avoid prolixity, but reproduced
in precise for disposal of this appeal which traces its
origin to an accident which took place on 09.12.1983,
when the son of the claimants was allegedly hit by the
tractor and trolley bearing Regd. No. OR-09-1972 and
OR-09-1974 respectively resulting in his death. An FIR
being filed on this accident came to be registered with
local Police Station paving the way for commencement
of the investigation which culminated in submission of
charge-sheet against the driver of the offending tractor
for rash and negligent driving. Upon a claim being filed,
the same was registered by the learned Tribunal in MAC
No.285 of 1993 which ended in disposal with direction
to the insurer to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants indicated supra. Being aggrieved with the
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 2 of 7

impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this
appeal.
3. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Insurer, but none appears for R-1 & 2 despite
duly noticed and having entered appearance through a
counsel. On the other hand, notice issued against R-3
returned unserved earlier, but later on also returned on
his death, however, R-3 being the owner of the
offending vehicle and having appeared in the claim with
a WS, but not contested it by leading any independent
evidence, and no liability has been fixed on the owner-
cum-R3 and therefore, re-issuance of notice against R-
3 stands dispensed with.
4. Admittedly, the insurer has filed this Appeal
with a delay of 43 days, but the grounds taken for
condonation of delay is late processing of the file in the
office of the insurer. The delay in this case is definitely
of shorter duration and therefore, the expression
“sufficient cause” must receive liberal construction.
Further, what constitutes “sufficient cause” cannot be
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 3 of 7

laid down precisely by any hard and fast rule, but the
ground for which delay has occurred in this case must
be considered pragmatically. The law of limitation is of
course based upon public policy that there should be an
end to the litigation and even of the delay is condoned
in this case, this appeal would be disposed of by this
judgment. Besides, when substantial justice and
technical consideration are pitted against each other,
the cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled
principles of law, when the case of the Appellant-
Insurer is considered liberally for a delay of small
duration, which cannot be said that the appellant-
insurer was negligent or slack, rather it can be
considered to have been prevented by “sufficient
cause” in not preferring this Appeal in time. Hence,
adopting a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented
approach, the delay of 43 days in filing this Appeal by
the insurer is hereby, condoned. According, Misc. Case
No.811 of 2006 is disposed of.
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 4 of 7

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the
Appellant-Insurer on Appeal, it appears that the main
challenge of the insurance company is to the liability to
pay the compensation amount to the claimants and
according to the plea as advanced on behalf of the
Appellant-Insurer, it is the consistent case of the
claimants that the deceased died as a gratuitous
passenger and thereby, the insurer is not liable to pay
the compensation or indemnify the owner. Adverting to
such contention, it needs to be emphasized here that
the insurer has not at all led any evidence before the

learned tribunal to substantiate its such claim nor has it
taken any such plea therein. In absence of any plea or
evidence, the plea as advanced by the insurer at the
Appellate stage for the first time that the deceased was
a gratuitous passenger, the same cannot be accepted in
law and thereby, the challenge of the petitioner being
unmerited stands rejected.
6. On coming to the issue of the quantum of
compensation, this Court does not find any error
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 5 of 7

apparent on the face of impugned judgment so as to
warrant interference in this Appeal qua the grant of
compensation to the claimants, but the default interest
as granted by the learned tribunal appears to be on
higher side, however, the same is also not beneficial to
the claimants, since it has been directed to be paid
once the insurer fails to pay the compensation amount
within 45 days of the date of impugned judgment,
however, the insurance company has filed this appeal
with some delay, but that has already been condoned
and thereby, the rate of interest as imposed needs to
be modified as well as the date of application required
to be precisely stated inasmuch as the claimants would
also suffer for non-receipt of interest on the award for
around 33 years. In the sequence of events, this Court
considers that interest of justice would be best served,
if the interest is reduced to 6% per annum and the
same be applicable w.e.f the date of filing of the claim
application. It is already held that the quantum of
compensation is not exorbitant nor is it challenged by
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 6 of 7

the claimants. In such view of the matter, the
impugned judgment of the learned tribunal stands
confirmed, but with modification of the interest as
indicated supra .
7. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment stands affirmed
with modification of interest. Accordingly, the insurer is
directed to pay the compensation amount together with
simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f the date of filing
of the claim application till its actual realization to the
claimants within eight weeks hence. The statutory
deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be
refunded upon receipt of proof of deposit of
compensation amount by the insurer before the learned
tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 04 November, 2026/Jayakrushna

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Kataka
Date: 05-Nov-2026 19:00:56
MACA No.914 of 2005
Page 7 of 7