Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
D.M. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sk. Abdul Kukar & Anr. - Respondents
FAO No. 519 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mahali, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Adv.
The court affirmed the need for credible evidence in establishing vehicle insurance status and the validity of disability assessment in compensation appeals.
Headnote:(A) Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Compensation for workplace injuries - The appellant contested both the disability and the vehicle’s insurance status while the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 17,23,247/- for injuries sustained by the claimant as a helper. The appellant argued that the vehicle was uninsured and that the disability assessment was flawed. Consequently, a consolidated compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was agreed upon during the hearing. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Appeal - Grounds of appeal - The insurer asserted that the claimant's disability and loss of earning capacity claims lacked a proper medical foundation. The court rejected these grounds due to insufficient supporting evidence. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a compensation award for an employee injured while working as a truck helper. The appellant disputed the vehicle's insurance status and the legitimacy of the claimant’s disability assessment.
Findings of Court:
The learned Commissioner’s initial award was deemed excessive and was reduced to Rs. 7,00,000/- to settle the matter.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the vehicle insurance and the appropriateness of the disability assessment relying on a non-specialist's opinion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the need for evidence to support claims regarding vehicle insurance and disability assessments, leading to a compromise on the compensation amount.
Result: Appeal disposed of with an agreed amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to be disbursed to the claimant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's procedural arrangement (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of compensation awarded for employment injury (Para 3) |
| 3. dispute over disability assessment and vehicle insurance (Para 4) |
| 4. proposed reduced compensation agreed upon (Para 5) |
| 5. directive on disbursement of compensation and penalty waiver (Para 6) |
| 6. conclusion on appeal decision (Para 7) |
ORDER :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment/ award dated 25th September, 2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.108-D of 2017 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.17,23,247/- has been granted on account of injuries sustained by the claimant during course of his employment as a helper in the Truck bearing registration No.OR-21-7162.
4. MR. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant though vehemently disputes the disability and income of the injured, took a specific ground that the injured was working as a helper in the Truck bearing Registration No. OR-21-B-3083, as the said vehicle had no Insurance at the time of the accident, the Truck bearing Registration No. OR-21-7162 has been planted in connivance with the owner of the vehicle. The contention of Mr. Mahali is rejected in absence of any evidence on behalf of the Appellant/Company. The Appellant/Insurance Company took further ground that the injured helper had sustained 70% disability and loss of earning capacity to the extent of 90% as assessed by the treating doctor who is not an orthopedic specialist. Hence, the learned Commissioner should not have accepted the disability and loss of earning capacity as assessed by the concerned doctor. The submission regarding the disability is reduced and the same is accepted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.
5. Having heard both the parties and considering all such grounds of challenge advanced, it appears that a reduced compensation of a consolidated sum of Rs.7,00,000/- is proposed to the parties in course of hearing. The same is agreed by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimant. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurer leaves it to the discretion of the Court. Accordingly, the amount is reduced to the said extent.
6. Since the entire awarded amount has been deposited before the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, the Commissioner is directed to disburse the reduced consolidated amount of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs) with proportionate accrued interest thereof in favour of the claimant within a period of two months from today. The balance amount of Rs.10,23,247/- with proportionate accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Insurer-Appellant. However, the penalty 50% and penal interest @ 12% as directed by the Commissioner is waived.
7. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
