Odisha High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceInsurance Law

Orissa HC Dismisses Insurer’s 52-Day-Late Appeal, Yet Cuts Accident Compensation Interest From 9% To 6% With Claimant’s Heirs’ Consent

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

Orissa HC Dismisses Insurer’s 52-Day-Late Appeal, Yet Cuts Accident Compensation Interest From 9% To 6% With Claimant’s Heirs’ Consent. D.M.,O.I.CO.LTD. vs MOHAN CH.NAYAK. Odisha High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the insurer had shown sufficient grounds for condoning the 52-day delay in filing its appeal

The court held

The Court dismissed the application to condone the 52-day delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

It also directed

It nevertheless reduced the interest on the compensation from 9% to 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest at that rate within eight weeks.

The statutory deposit and accrued interest were directed to be refunded upon proof that the compensation had been deposited before the Tribunal.

01Facts

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar, awarded the claimant ₹1,20,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

pp. 1-4

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the interest rate, but the appeal was filed 52 days late.

pp. 1-4

The insurer sought condonation of delay, attributing it to the time taken to obtain legal opinion, secure internal approval, and engage counsel.

pp. 1-4

The claimant’s legal representatives stated that they had no objection to reducing the interest rate to 6% per annum.

pp. 1-4

02Issues

i.Whether the insurer had shown sufficient grounds for condoning the 52-day delay in filing its appeal

pp. 2-4

ii.Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced from 9% to 6% per annum, notwithstanding dismissal of the appeal as time-barred

pp. 4-5

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

p. 3

In considering the insurer’s application for condonation, the Court assessed whether the stated reasons adequately explained the delay; it found that the averments lacked precise details and were unconvincing.

p. 3

The Court also considered the claimant’s legal representatives’ express lack of objection to reducing the interest rate.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found the insurer’s explanation—internal processing, legal consultation, and engagement of counsel—insufficiently particularised to justify condonation.

pp. 3-4

It also considered the substantial time elapsed since the accident and the Tribunal’s award in declining to reopen the matter through a delayed appeal.

pp. 3-4

However, because the claimant’s legal representatives consented to a lower rate, the Court reduced the interest from 9% to 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim until realization.

pp. 4-5

05Holding

The Court dismissed the application to condone the 52-day delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

pp. 4-5

It nevertheless reduced the interest on the compensation from 9% to 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest at that rate within eight weeks.

pp. 4-5

The statutory deposit and accrued interest were directed to be refunded upon proof that the compensation had been deposited before the Tribunal.

pp. 4-5
Odisha High Court

Original Court PDF

D.M.,O.I.CO.LTD.vsMOHAN CH.NAYAK

Odisha High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment