GORU @GOUR MUNDA vs BAJARANGLAL UPADHYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.685 of 2009
CNR No. ODHC010370282009

(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

Goru @ Gour Munda Appellant
…
-versus-

Bajaranglal Upadhya and
another
Respondents
…


For Appellant : Mr. U.C. Behura, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
(for R-2), None for R-1


CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:05.11.2026 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

MACA No.685 of 2009 & Misc. Case No.1179 of 2009

1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
Appeal on merit, but also the Misc. Case No.1179 of
2009 filed U/S.5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for
condonation of delay of 119 days in preferring the
Appeal to challenge the impugned judgment dated
rd
11.12.2008 passed by the learned 3 Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rourkela (in short, the “Tribunal”) in
MAC Case No.324 of 2003 directing the United India
MACA No.685 of 2009 Page 1 of 5

Insurance Co. Ltd.-cum-R2 herein (In short, “the
to pay a sum of Rs.1,88,266/- as
insurer”)
compensation to the claimant-appellant within two
months thence, failing which to pay default simple
interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. the date of judgment
till payment is made with further right to recover the
compensation from the owner of the vehicle-cum-R1.
2. The facts in this case, being largely undisputed
are not reiterated to avoid prolixity; but it is, however,
made clear by the learned counsel for the claimant-
appellant that the claimant challenges the impugned
judgment for non-award of interest w.e.f. from the date
of filing of the claim.
3. Heard, Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant and Mr. P.K. Mahali,
learned counsel for R2 in the matter and perused the
record. None appears for R1-cum-owner, but no notice
has been served on him despite issuance of notice
against him, however, the re-issuance of notice against
R1 stands dispensed with in view of the provision under
MACA No.685 of 2009 Page 2 of 5

Order XLI Rule 14(4) of the CPC, since R1 was set ex-
parte on 17.10.2006 in the proceeding before the
learned Tribunal as he did not appear in the claim.
4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 119 days, but
the appellant is the claimant and the delay in preferring
the Appeal has not been challenged by the insurer by
filing any written objection and the insurer only
challenges such delay by advancing oral objection.
Delay of long duration can be taken into account for
passing any adverse order in not condoning the delay,
but delay of such shorter duration should always be
considered liberally. It is also no longer res integra that
when substantial justice and technical consideration are
pitted against each other, the cause of substantial
justice deserves to be accepted and the appellant
herein being the claimant should not be prevented from
agitating his grievance due to delay in filing the Appeal.
This Court, accordingly, considers that the delay of 119
days having justifiably explained by the appellant, the
same needs to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of
119 days in preferring the Appeal stands condoned.
MACA No.685 of 2009 Page 3 of 5

Hence, the Misc. Case No.1179 of 2009 stands
disposed of.

5. Turning to the challenge of the appellant
which is only with regard to imposition of interest from
the date of judgment, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has not granted any interest on the award,
rather it has granted a default interest by putting a
clause that if the award is not paid within two months
thence, the award will carry 7% interest w.e.f. the date
of judgment, which appears to be a clear violation of
Section 171 of the Act. When the claimant has filed an
application for compensation, the interest should be
awarded from the date of application, but herein in this
case, the default interest has been made payable w.e.f.
the date of judgment, which is erroneous and liable to
be modified. It is also not in dispute that the Claim
Appeal is pending since 2009, and although the award
has already been satisfied, but the same is without any
interest, however, the claimant is entitled to interest.
In the aforesaid facts and situation and on
MACA No.685 of 2009 Page 4 of 5

consideration of the materials placed on record, this
Court considers that the impugned judgment is liable to
be modified with imposition of simple interest @ 6%
per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim till
actual realization.
6. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed to the
extent indicated above, but there is no order as to
costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the
learned Tribunal stands confirmed with modification of
interest and the insurer is, hereby, directed to pay the
modified compensation together with the interest w.e.f.
the date of filing of claim application till actual
realization to the claimant within eight weeks hence by
paying the differential amount, if the claimant has
already received the award earlier.


(G. Satapathy)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
th
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Dated the 5 day of November, 2026/Subhasmita
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2026 14:20:02
Signature Not Verified
MACA No.685 of 2009 Page 5 of 5