O.I.CO.LTD. vs SANTOSH@RAMESH

Court
Odisha High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.59 of 2006

CNR No. ODHC010016062006
(An appeal Under Section-173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988).

The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., Bolangir
… Appellant

-versus-
Santosh alias Ramesh
Panigrahi & Others
… Respondents



For Appellant : Mrs. R. Pati, Advocate


For Respondents : None
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 05.11.2026 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.
MACA NO.59 OF 2006 AND MISC.CASE NO.167 OF 2006
1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
Appeal on merit, but also MC No.167 of 2006 filed by the
learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) U/S.5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 20 days
in preferring the appeal to challenge the impugned
rd
judgment dated 15.09.2005 passed by the learned 3
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepur in MACT Case
No.28 of 2004 directing the Oriental Insurance Company
(In short “the insurer”) to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,000/-
together with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 02.07.2004
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 1 of 9

till its actual realization to the claimants-cum-R1 to R4
herein towards compensation for the death of their sole
bread earner namely Sriballav Panigrahi(In short “the
deceased”) who died in a motor vehicular accident in an
application U/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In
short “the Act”).
2. Facts in precise are that in an accident which
took place on 01.01.2004 at about 9 PM near Baliabandh,
one commander jeep bearing Regd. No. OR-12-6992
carrying the deceased as passenger coming from
Kantamal to Cuttack was allegedly hit/collided with
another commander jeep bearing Regd. No. OR-04-D-
1379(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”)
as a result the deceased sustained injuries and referred
to SCBMCH, Cuttack, but he ultimately died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident. An FIR being
filed on this accident came to be registered as Dhenkanal
Sadar PS Case No. 1 of 2004 with commencement of
investigation which resulted in submission of charge
sheet against driver of both the vehicles for rash and
negligent driving. Upon a claim being filed by the
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 2 of 9

dependents of the deceased, the same was registered by
the learned Tribunal in MACT No. 28 of 2004, wherein
notices were issued to the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle, but the owner of the offending vehicle
although albeit filed his written statement, however, did
not laid any evidence, whereas the insurer filed its written
statement denying its liability to pay the compensation to
the claimants and inter-alia averring that the other
vehicles being rash and negligent, the owner thereof is
liable to pay the compensation.
3. On the interse pleadings of the parties,
necessary issues were framed and the learned tribunal
proceeded with the claim by allowing the parties to lead
evidence. Accordingly, the claimants examined two
witnesses and relied upon seven documents under Ext. 1
to 7 in support of their claim as against the sole
documentary evidence of certified copy of the MVI Report
under Ext. A by the insurer. On conclusion of the inquiry,
the learned tribunal after appreciating the evidence upon
hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment
directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 3 of 9

indicated supra to the claimants. Being aggrieved with
the impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this
appeal, but the main challenge of the insurer is for
composite negligence of both the vehicles and it is not
alone liable to pay the compensation.
4. Heard, Mrs. Rimjhimbala Pati, learned counsel
for the Appellant-Petitioner, but none appears for
Respondents, however, the notice issued to R1 to R4
returned with postal endorsement “refused”, whereas
notice issued against R5 returned with delivery and
thereby, the service of notice issued against Respondents
is held to be sufficient.
5. Admittedly, there is a delay of 20 days in filing
the appeal, but it is claimed by the insurer that the delay
is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather it is prevented
by “sufficient cause” for not approaching the Court within
the stipulated time. It is no more res integra that when
delay is of shorter duration, the Court should approach
the case liberally, but the same is not applicable when the
delay is of longer duration and the same is the product of
negligence and utter apathy of the person responsible for
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 4 of 9

delay. The ground under which the insurer seeks for
condonation of delay in this case appears to be
convincing and does not suggest to be a case of absolute
apathy. Besides, the grounds taken for condonation of
delay in this Appeal 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 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 if 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, it cannot be said that the
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 5 of 9

appellant-insurer was negligent or slack, rather the
insurer 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 20 days in filing this Appeal by the
insurer is hereby, condoned. Accordingly, Misc. Case
No.167 of 2006 is disposed of.
6. After having bestowed an anxious and careful
consideration to the challenge of the insurer, it appears
that the only challenge of the insurer is to pay his liability
for 50%, but law in this regard is very clear which has
been already laid down in Khenyei Vrs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; (2015) 9 SCC 273 wherein
at paragraph no.22 the Apex Court has recorded its
conclusion which reads as under: -
“22.1. In the case of composite negligence,
plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or
any one of the joint tortfeasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability
of joint tortfeasors is joint and several .
22.2. In the case of composite negligence,
apportionment of compensation between two
tortfeasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not
permissible. He can recover at his option
whole damages from any of them .
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 6 of 9

22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been
impleaded and evidence is sufficient; it is open to
the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of
composite negligence of the drivers. However,
determination of the extent of negligence between
the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of
their inter se liability so that one may recover the
sum from the other after making whole of
payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it
has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both
of them have been impleaded and the
apportionment/extent of their negligence has been
determined by the court/tribunal, in main case
one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from
the other in the execution proceedings.
22.4. It would not be appropriate for the
court/tribunal to determine the extent of
composite negligence of the drivers of two
vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other
joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint
tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to
sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent
proceedings after passing of the decree or award.”

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and situation and
taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court
in Khenyei (supra), the claimants have the option to
proceed against the present Insurance Company for grant
of compensation, but at the same time, the claimants are
also free to take any decision to proceed against any of
the Insurance Companies/ both of them in terms of the
judgment laid down by the Apex Court in Khenyei
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 7 of 9

(supra). Hence, the challenge of the insurer appears to
be unmerited and is accordingly, stood rejected.
8. On coming to the quantum of
compensation, it appears that the learned tribunal has
rightly taken into account the income and other factors of
the deceased in computing the compensation. Even
otherwise, the quantum as determined by the learned has
never been challenged by the claimants and this Court,
therefore, does not consider it proper to disturb the
finding on the quantum of compensation which has been
arrived at by the learned tribunal in accordance with law.
In the sequence of events, this Court does not find any
error apparent on the record to differ with the finding of
the learned tribunal so as to warrant interference by this
Court in this appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed, but
there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned tribunal is hereby
confirmed and the insurer is hereby directed to pay the
compensation amount together with accrued interest
thereon in terms of the impugned judgment within eight
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 8 of 9

weeks hence. It is, however, brought to the notice of the
Court that the insurer has already deposited the entire
amount of compensation together with the accrued
interest thereon before the learned tribunal in terms of
the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2024 and if that
be so, the insurer is hereby permitted to appropriate this
amount towards payment of compensation to the
claimants. The statutory deposit together with the
accrued interest thereon be refunded soon after receipt of
proof of payment of compensation to the learned tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 5 November, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 06-Nov-2026 16:08:26
MACA No.59 of 2006
Page 9 of 9