Orissa High Court
Subash Chandra Dandapat vs Lalita Chintury And on 10 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.382 of 2022
Subash Chandra Dandapat .... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Lalita Chintury and
Another .... Respondents
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Res-2-Company
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.07.2025 Order No.
10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Company.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant- claimant challenging Judgment dtd.31.03.2022 so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-4th MACT, Angul in MAC Case No.141 of 2017. Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.77,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
// 2 //
4. While assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant who happens to be the husband of the deceased, filed the claim application seeking grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs for the death of his wife.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the wife of the deceased was a government employee and she was drawing salary of Rs.50,618/- as reflected in Ext.23. The same was also proved with due examination of P.W. 2. It is contended that only on the ground that the present claimant-appellant was also a government employee and accordingly not dependent on the deceased, the tribunal allowed compensation of Rs.77,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of application till its realization. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Birender and Others. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-12 and 14 of the judgment has held as follows:-
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] , the Court observed thus:
(SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12) "9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 523 : (2004) 2 CHN 370] that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. ... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 482] a legal representative is one who suffers Page 3 of 5 // 4 // on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."
14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.
5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Company on the other hand contended that after passing of the award, the same has already been satisfied and it is also contended that since the Claimant-appellant is a government employee, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the compensation which requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased in a road accident, the claim application was filed by the claimant-appellant who happens to be the husband of the deceased in MACA No.141 of 2017. As found from the impugned judgment, the tribunal did not assess the compensation in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Pranay Sethi Page 4 of 5 // 5 // and Others and so also the decision in the case of Birender and Others as cited (supra).
6.1. Though it is not disputed that the appellant is a government employee but placing reliance on the aforesaid 2 (two) decisions, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the claim of the appellant-claimant in terms of the said decisions. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2022, so passed in MAC Case No.141 of 2017 by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- 4th MACT, Angul. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the tribunal with a direction to decide the claim afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Since the claim is of the year 2017, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the claim application as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of this year, if there is no other legal impediment.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature NotBasudev Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jul-2025 11:16:37 Page 5 of 5