April to June 2013 For PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

Court
News
21
Company also covers the other two employees besides the statutory liability of driver and conductor –
Held, the commissioner is justified in holding that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation awarded to the legal heir of the deceased-Helper.
(B) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 : S. 115
Estoppel – Insurer neither pleaded nor produced any evidence regarding the policy condition before
the Tribunal – Held, in the absence of ay pleading the insurer is estopped to raise any plea in the appeal
that in the insurance policy the liability of Helper is not covered – Learned Commissioner is justified to
fasten liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1 for the
death of the Helper.
(C) WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 : S. 4-A (3)
Payment of Interest – No appeal filed by the claimant – Whether the insurere is laible to pay
interest in the event of default that too with retrospective effect – Held, yes – Direction issued to the
Insurance company to pay simple interest on the amount of compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the application till the date of passing of the award and interest at the rate of 12% P.A.,
thereafter till the compensation amount is deposited before the commissioner.
(B.N.Mahapatra, J.)
SATSANGHA KENDRA, BARAMUNDA -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.20511 OF 2011 (Dt.14.05.2013)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – O-1, R-10
Impletion of party – Person who has direct interest in the subject matter of litigation can be
impleded as a party.
In this case although there is no material on record to show that the 3 rd party-interveners are
necessary parties having direct interest in the suit property the learned trial Court has allowed their prayer
which is challenged in this writ petition – Not a single Scrap of paper has been produced in bolstering
their claim – Learned trial Court has not at all discussed in the impugned order as to how their impletion
would help the Court in proper adjudication of the suit – The impugned order is very cryptic and nonspeaking
– Learned Court below did not apply its judicial mind and conscience while deciding to implead
them which definitely has caused prejudice to the plaintiff – Held, the impugned order is set aside –
Direction issued to the Court below to proceed with the suit if pleadings are complete.
(B. K. Misra, J.)
PRASANNA KUMAR RAM -V- NABAKISHORE RAM & ORS.
R.F.A. NO.6 OF 2009 (Dt.14.05.2013)
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 – S.8
Scheme of succession to the property of a Hindu dying intestate – Heirs specified in Class-I took
simultaneously to the exclusion of all other heirs – A Son’s son was not mentioned as an heir under Class-
I of the Schedule so he could not get any right in the property of his grand father under the provision –
The right of a son’s son on his grand father’s property during the life time of his father which existed under
Hindu law as in force before the succession Act, was not saved expressly by the Act and therefore the
earlier interpretation of Hindu law giving a right by birth in such property ceased to have effect.