Orissa High Court
The Legal Manager vs Trupti Pal &Ors on 25 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.48 of 2024
(From the judgment dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Commissioner
for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour
Commissioner, Cuttack, in E.C. Case No. 207 of 2021
The Legal Manager, M/s. Bajaj .... Appellant(s)
Allianz General Insurance Company
Ltd., Bhubaneswar
-versus-
Trupti Pal &Ors. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Adam Ali Khan, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr.Biswajit Mohanty, Adv.
Mr.Anirudha Rout, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, in E.C. Case No. 207 of 2021.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(i) The Respondent No. 2 was employed as a driver of a Hyundai car, bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-1224, owned by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Nayak, a resident of Dharmasala, District Jajpur. The said vehicle was insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(ii) On 24.03.2021, at approximately 8:10 P.M., while discharging his duties as the driver of the aforesaid vehicle en route from Chandikhole to Dhenkanal, Respondent No. 2 had parked the vehicle to take a break. While proceeding on foot towards a nearby restaurant, he was struck by an unidentified vehicle being driven at high speed, which fled from the scene.
(iii) As a result of the accident, Respondent No. 2 sustained a head fracture along with other multiple injuries on various parts of his body. He was initially admitted to Sriramchandrapur Hospital. However, due to the critical nature of his condition, he was referred the same day to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.
(iv) At SCB Medical College and Hospital, Respondent No. 2 was admitted to the Neurosurgery Department as an inpatient from 24.03.2021 to 05.04.2021, where he received treatment for paralysis affecting the right side of his body.
(v) Following his discharge, Respondent No. 2 continued treatment at Sai Hospital, Cuttack, from 08.04.2021 to 18.04.2021, wherein he underwent surgery. The total cost of treatment amounted to Rs. 2,49,360/-, which included hospital expenses of Rs. 1,84,107/-, Page 2 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 medication costs of Rs. 23,526/-, and expenses for externally purchased medicines amounting to Rs. 41,721/-.
(vi) After being discharged from Sai Hospital, Respondent No. 2 remained under medical care of Dr. P.C. Nath from 04.06.2021 to 24.11.2022. Despite ongoing treatment, there was no observable improvement in his condition.
(vii) On 08.08.2022, the Jajpur Medical Board assessed Respondent No. 2 as suffering from a 50% temporary disability due to right-sided paralysis.
(viii) Subsequently, he sought further treatment under Dr. Anadi Charan Nayak from 25.11.2022 to 25.12.2022, who opined that although the physical disability was 50%, the functional loss of earning capacity was 80%, rendering him unfit to continue working as a professional driver.
(ix) At the time of the accident, Respondent No. 2 was approximately 31 years of age and was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 15,000/-.
(x) In light of the accident, injuries, and subsequent disability, Respondent No. 2, through his wife Tripti Pal, instituted E.C. Case No. 207 of 2021 before the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Cuttack, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. Both the vehicle owner and the insurer were impleaded as opposite parties. The employer admitted the factual matrix of employment and accident, save and except for the claimant's age. The insurer, however, denied the claims in their entirety.
Page 3 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(xi) Upon considering the pleadings, and evidence, the Tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 2 was employed as the driver of the aforementioned Hyundai motor car and that the injuries sustained by him arose out of and during the course of his employment.
(xii) The Tribunal held that Respondent No. 2 had suffered an 80% loss of earning capacity. Compensation was accordingly computed as 60% of his monthly wage, multiplied by the relevant factor applicable for a person aged 31 years (205.95), and further multiplied by the assessed 80% loss of earning capacity, resulting in a compensation of Rs. 14,82,840/-. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded from the date of accident (24.03.2021) to the date of judgment (15.12.2023), amounting to Rs. 4,85,071/-, thereby taking the total to Rs. 19,67,911/-. In addition, medical expenses of Rs. 2,49,360/- were awarded, bringing the total compensation amount to Rs. 22,17,271/-.
(xiii) M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to deposit the awarded compensation within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the insurer would be liable to pay a penalty of 50% on the principal amount, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in accordance with Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions Page 4 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(i) The Respondent's claim of having sustained grievous head injuries and multiple bleeding wounds due to being struck by an unidentified vehicle is not substantiated by any contemporaneous police records. No FIR was lodged, nor was any injury report prepared following a police requisition. The absence of these essential documents significantly undermines the credibility of the alleged incident. The circumstances strongly suggest that the claim may have been fabricated, possibly in collusion with the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-1224, with the intent to fraudulently obtain compensation from the Appellant-Insurance Company.
(ii) None of the documents produced by the Respondent No.2 substantiate the claim that the injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident while he was engaged in the course of his employment as a driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-1224, owned by Opposite Party No.1. The evidentiary record is devoid of any material linking the alleged accident to the performance of his official duties. This glaring omission strengthens the inference that the claim is a post facto fabrication, constructed upon a false narrative involving the aforementioned vehicle.
(iii) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Respondent No.2 sustained injuries during the course of his employment while discharging duties as the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-1224, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Page 5 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Jajpur, clearly records only a temporary disability of 50%, valid for a period of three years. In light of this, and in the absence of any conclusive evidence demonstrating permanent disability or its impact on the Respondent No.2's earning capacity, no lawful assessment of loss of earning capacity could have been made under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner's finding that the Respondent No.2 suffered an 80% loss of earning capacity is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the evidentiary record, thereby vitiating the entire judgment, which should be set aside.
(iv) The discharge summary issued by S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, clearly records the Respondent No.2's age as 37 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Commissioner should have applied the relevant factor of 192.14 in computing the compensation amount, as per the Schedule to the Employees' Compensation Act,1923. However, the Commissioner erroneously applied the factor of 205.95, which corresponds to a lower age bracket, thereby inflating the compensation amount.
(v) The testimony of P.W.-2, Dr. Anadi Charan Nayak, unequivocally establishes that the Respondent No.2 was suffering from a temporary disability to the extent of 50%. Dr. Nayak further admitted that he is not authorized to issue a disability certificate and that only the Medical Board is competent to do so. The Medical Board, in fact, assessed the Respondent No.2's disability as temporary, limited to 50%, and valid for a period of three years. In light of this, no Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 assessment of permanent loss of earning capacity was legally permissible under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. However, the Learned Commissioner overlooked this crucial aspect and erroneously accepted a loss of earning capacity of 80%, which has fundamentally vitiated the compensation calculation.
(vi) Although the owner of the vehicle in question admitted in both his written statement and oral testimony that the Respondent No.2 was being paid Rs. 10,000/- per month as wages, the Commissioner, without assigning any cogent reason or properly appreciating the evidence on record, erroneously assessed the compensation by accepting the Respondent No.2's monthly wage as Rs. 15,000/-. This finding is unsupported by any reliable documentary evidence and contradicts the admissions of the employer himself.
(vii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is exorbitant and disproportionately high in relation to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(viii) The Commissioner further erred by awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident until the date of the judgment, without considering that, under Section 4(A) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the liability to pay interest rests solely with the employer and not with the Appellant-Insurance Company. The imposition of interest on the insurance company is, therefore, unjustifiable and contrary to the statutory provisions. As Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 such, the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum is unsustainable in law and should be set aside.
(ix) The Commissioner has also erred by directing the Appellant to pay a 50% penalty, along with 12% interest on the awarded amount, which includes both the principal and interest from the date of the accident until the date of the judgment, in case of default. This direction is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(A) of the Employees' Compensation Act,1923, which does not mandate such a penalty to be imposed on the insurer. Therefore, the imposition of both the penalty and interest is legally unsustainable and should be set aside. III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The owner of the involved vehicle, who is also the employer, has stated in both his Written Statement and oral evidence that he paid a monthly wage of Rs. 15,000/- along with a fooding allowance. It is important to note that the minimum wage at the time of the accident was Rs. 401/- per day, excluding the fooding allowance. While the minimum wage applies to an 8-hour workday, the wage determination of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the driver, who worked night shifts away from home, is not unreasonable. This finding, unchallenged by the insurer, constitutes a factual determination under Section 30, Proviso-I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and cannot be disputed.Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(ii) The evidence on record clearly shows that the injured driver was in a coma and later suffered from paralysis, which rendered him unable to speak or express himself. However, the treating doctor at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, in his discharge certificate, confirmed that the injury was caused by a Road Traffic Accident. Since this is a matter of fact and not a question of law, it is not open to challenge under the statutory provisions of Proviso-I to Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
(iii) In the present case, the driver's head injury resulted in 50 percent paralysis of his right side. Schedule I and Explanation II of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, mandate that disability and loss of earning capacity be assessed according to prescribed percentages. Consequently, the treating physician (PW-2) assessed 50 percent physical disability and an 80 percent loss of earning capacity. The insurer neither arranged its own medical examination nor produced contrary evidence, making any challenge at the appeal stage unsustainable.
(iv) In its Medical Certificate dated 08.08.2022, the Medical Board, Jajpur, classified the injured driver as suffering from locomotor disability, diagnosed as right-sided hemiparesis, and assessed a fifty percent temporary disability affecting the right arm, leg, shoulder, neck, elbow, spine, and brain, in accordance with the RPWD Act, 2016 guidelines. The appellant seizes upon the term "temporary" and its implied validity until 08.08.2025 to argue against a finding of Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. However, Section 2(g) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, defines partial disablement, whether temporary or permanent, as any reduction in earning capacity in the employment held at the time of injury. This clear statutory definition nullifies the insurer's objection, and the appeal should therefore be dismissed with heavy costs. IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION-
CUM-DIVISIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK:
5. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, after reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and hearing arguments from both parties, made the following findings:
(i) The Respondent No.2 was employed by Rakesh Kumar Nayak as the driver of the Hyundai Motor Car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-
1224 at the time of the accident. This fact is established by the Respondent No.2's own evidence and is unequivocally admitted by the employer in both his Written Statement and oral testimony.
(ii) On 24.03.2021, while performing his duties as a driver en route from Chandikhole to Dhenkanal, the Respondent No.2 was struck by a speeding vehicle near Gandhi Chhak. The resulting severe head injuries, along with subsequent treatment records from SCBMCH and Sai Hospital, confirm that the accident occurred in the course of his employment.
(iii) At the time of the accident on 24.03.2021, the Respondent No.2 was 31 years old, as confirmed by the disability certificate, which lists the Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Respondent No.2 's date of birth as 11.12.1990. The Respondent No.2 stated in his claim that he was earning Rs. 15,000 per month, a fact corroborated by the employer, in both written and oral testimony.
(iv) The Respondent No.2's disability was assessed at 50% by the Medical Authority in Jajpur, with a 80% loss of earning capacity due to his profession as a driver, as per the evidence of his treating physician, Dr. A.C. Naik. Based on the formula under Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act,1923, the compensation for the loss of earning capacity was calculated at Rs. 14,82,840. This amount was further augmented by interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident, i.e., 24.03.2021, until the date of judgment, i.e., 15.12.2023, amounting to Rs. 4,85,071. Additionally, the Respondent No.2 provided evidence of medical treatment expenses, including bills from Sai Hospital, Cuttack, totaling Rs. 2,49,360. The final compensation, therefore, includes the compensation for loss of earning capacity, i.e., Rs. 14,82,840, interest of Rs. 4,85,071, and medical treatment expenses of Rs. 2,49,360, bringing the total amount awarded to Rs. 22,17,271.
(v) The employer, admitted in both his written statement and evidence that the Respondent No.2 was employed as a driver for his Hyundai Motor Car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AQ-1224. The employer also confirmed that the vehicle was insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., under a valid policy that covered the date of the accident. The employer submitted all relevant documents, including the vehicle's Registration Certificate (R.C.), Insurance Policy, Page 11 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 and the Driver's License, all of which were valid at the time of the accident. Since /s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd did not dispute the validity of the insurance policy or the documents, the liability for compensation was placed on the insurance company. As a result, the Employees' Compensation case was allowed in favor of the Respondent No.2, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs. 22,17,271/-. Additionally, it was observed that in case of delay in payment, the insurance company would be liable to pay a penalty with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as per Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act,1923. V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
7. The primary question for adjudication in the present appeal is whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, erred in awarding compensation to Respondent No.2 and in directing the Appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs. 22,17,271/-, along with imposing liability to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a penalty under Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, in the event of delay in payment.
8. It is trite law that, in order to be entitled to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment.
Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
9. Section 3 of the Act encapsulates the liability of the employer to pay compensation in cases where personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
10. The phrase "accident arising out of and in the course of employment"
has consistently been interpreted by courts to require the existence of a causal connection between the employment and the accident.
11. The Supreme Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa1 observed that an employee must prove that the injury was caused or had its origin in the employment.
12. Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act governs appeals and has been replicated hereunder:
"30. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely--
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4- A;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or (1996) 6 SCC 1 1 Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:
Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section."
13. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the scope of appeal under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is limited, and an appeal to the High Court shall lie only where a substantial question of law is involved.
14. The Supreme Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.2, observed that interference by the High Court is permissible only where there exists a substantial question of law or 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105.
Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 where the findings of the Commissioner are perverse. The Court emphasized that reappreciation of evidence falls outside the limited appellate scope prescribed under Section 30 of the Act.
15. InGolla Rajamma v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.3,the Supreme Court observed that the Commissioner is the final authority on facts.
16. It is, therefore, settled that the High Court, functioning as a court of limited appellate jurisdiction under the Act, cannot substitute its own findings merely on the ground that an alternative view is possible. Keeping these principles in view, the task before this Court is confined to determining whether the findings of the Commissioner are tainted by perversity, misapplication of law, or legal infirmity.
17. In the present case, the Commissioner has returned a categorical finding, based on the evidence of the employer and the supporting medical records, that Respondent No. 2 was employed as a driver of the Hyundai motor car bearing registration no. OD-02-AQ-1224. It was further found that the accident occurred on 24.03.2021, while he was en route from Chandikhole to Dhenkanal, and in the course of his employment. This conclusion is duly supported by the employer's written statement as well as his oral deposition before the Commissioner.
18. The treatment records from SCB Medical College and Hospital as well as Sai Hospital clearly reflect the nature and severity of the injuries 3 (2017) 1 SCC 45.
Page 15 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 sustained by Respondent No. 2 and specifically identify the cause of injury as a road traffic accident. The employer, in his deposition, unequivocally confirmed that Respondent No. 2 was driving the insured vehicle at the relevant time and was discharging his official duties. In light of this evidence, the causal link between the accident and the course of employment stands firmly established.
19. The objection raised by the insurer regarding the absence of an FIR or police requisition was duly considered by the learned Commissioner. The absence of such documents is not, by itself, fatal to a claim for compensation under the Act, provided the claimant adduces other cogent, credible, and contemporaneous evidence, which was duly done in the present case.
20. As to the assessment of disability, the Medical Board certified a 50% temporary locomotor disability. However, the treating physician (P.W.-2), based on clinical observation and the specific occupational requirement of driving, assessed the loss of earning capacity at 80%. The insurer failed to rebut this evidence or produce a contrary medical opinion. The Commissioner was therefore justified in accepting this uncontroverted testimony.
21. On the issue of age and income, the Commissioner rightly relied on the disability certificate, which recorded the date of birth of Respondent No. 2 as 11.12.1990, thereby determining his age as 31 years on the date of the accident. While the employer, in his oral deposition, stated that the claimant was earning Rs. 10,000/- per Page 16 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 month, he concurrently admitted in his written statement that Respondent No. 2 was paid Rs. 15,000/- per month, inclusive of food allowance. No perversity is found in this factual determination.
22. The compensation was computed in accordance with Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, by applying the statutory formula: 60% of the monthly wage × relevant factor (205.95 for age 31) × assessed loss of earning capacity (80%). The Commissioner adopted the correct multiplier corresponding to the claimant's age as per the Schedule to the Act. Additionally, interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded from the date of the accident, in line with Section 4A, which provides for such payment in the event of delay.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no perversity, legal infirmity, or substantial question of law in the impugned order. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are well- reasoned, supported by evidence, and consistent with the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
VI. CONCLUSION:
24. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference.
25. The direction of the Commissioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,17,271/-
towards compensation, inclusive of interest and medical expenses, is upheld. The liability of the Appellant to comply with the same within the stipulated period remains undisturbed.
Page 17 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
26. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th April, 2025/ Page 18 of 18