Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No. 384 of 2023

(An appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,

1923.)

Branch Manager, M/s. National …. Appellant(s)

Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack

-versus-

Litu Naik @ Manoranjan Naik & …. Respondent(s)

Ors.

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Behera, Adv

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-03.12.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The appellant in the present appeal assails the judgment dated

18.05.2023 passed in E.C. Case No. 07 of 2012 by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Berhampur, Ganjam. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows as culled out from the records

and oral submissions:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 (i) The respondent no.1 being the applicant before the court below sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 18.10.2010 while he was working as a labourer under Respondent No. 3. It was alleged that during the course of his employment, he fell down from the 7th floor, resulting in severe and grievous injuries.

(ii) Immediately after the accident, the injured claimant was shifted to Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore, where he remained admitted as an indoor patient for a period of about forty-eight days. During the course of treatment, both his legs and right hand were operated upon. The medical expenses incurred for such treatment were borne by Respondent No. 4. It was further claimed that owing to the nature of injuries sustained, the claimant was rendered incapable of continuing his work.

(iii) At the time of the accident, the claimant was stated to be about 27 years of age and earning wages of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

(iv) In connection with the said incident, a police case bearing No. 84033 dated 18.10.2010 was registered.

(v) Upon issuance of notice, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 entered appearance and filed a joint written statement contending inter alia that the claimant was employed under a sub-contractor, namely Mithun @ Ketan Chhotray of Kuhudi, District Khurda, and was deployed at the work site on the date of the accident. While it was asserted that the occurrence of the accident could not be entirely disputed, it was contended that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were unable to collect

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 detailed information from the work site or obtain the police report. It was further pleaded that a Workmen’s Compensation insurance policy was in force covering the workers engaged at the project site.

Respondent No. 5, despite service of notice, was set ex parte.

(vi) The Insurance Company, on the other hand, denied the averments made in the claim petition, put the claimant to strict proof of his case, and sought dismissal of the claim.

(vii) On the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Commissioner framed two issues for determination and, upon consideration thereof, decided the same in favour of the claimant, awarding compensation of Rs. 24,90,650/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable from the date of the accident.

(viii) Aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 18.05.2023, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities and perversity and is therefore liable to be set aside.

(ii) Relying upon Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the primary liability to pay compensation rests upon the employer, and tha