Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1019 of 2023 CNR No. ODHC010858452023 Prafulla Kumar Sahoo @ Prafulla Sahoo ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - Debendra Narayan Pattanaik -versus- D.M, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. C.B.O.I, BBSR and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/S. RIMJHIMBALA PATI, N.BARIK, M/s. D.K. Raychoudhury, P.P. SAHOO CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.08.2026 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein and the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed in M.A.C. No.905 of 2009 by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge -cum- 4th M.A.C.T., Cuttack. Page 2 of 4. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant at the outset contended that the Claimant-Appellant have approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereby challenging the nil award dated 10.02.2023. While assailing the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023. Learned counsel for the Appellant, drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 08.02.2023, at Annexure-2, of the Court of 4th MACT, Cuttack in M.A.C. No.905 of 2009, submitted before this Court that although the M.A.C. case was posted to 03.04.2023 for hearing in presence of the Advocate for the Appellant, the matter was taken up on 10.02.2023 and the same has been disposed of vide the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023, at Annexure-1. 4. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended that the Appellant-Claimant did not get any opportunity to adduce any evidence from their side and they were not given an opportunity to place their case before the learned Tribunal before passing of the nil award dated 10.02.2023. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended before this Court that the impugned award is highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Insurance Company on the other hand did not dispute order dated 08.02.2023, at Annexure-2, to the appeal memo. She further contended that the case is of the year 2009 and it was pending for more than a Page 3 of 4. decade. She further submitted that the Claimant-Appellant who was the Appellant before the Claims Tribunal did not take any step to adduce evidence or to see that the M.A.C. case is disposed of. It was also contended that due to lack of interest on the part of the claimants, the claim case was unnecessarily being dragged. As a result of which, the learned Tribunal took up the case and upon a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case disposed of the same vide his judgment dated 10.02.2023. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company contended before this Court that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality which would call for on interference by this Court in the present appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and upon a careful examination of the background facts as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023 and order dated 08.02.2023 at Annexues-1 and 2 respectively, this Court observes that in presence of the Appellant, the learned Tribunal passed the order dated 08.02.2023 adjourning the matter to 03.04.2023. However, the order-sheet does not disclose that the matter was pre-poned on anybody’s application or that any intimation has been given to the Appellant with regard to the fact that the matter would be taken up for final hearing on 10.02.2023. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant was not put to notice that the matter would be taken up for final hearing on 10.02.2023. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality by pre-poning the matter on his own motion without giving any intimation to the Appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2023 Page 4 of 4. is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law. Further, it is directed that since the case is of the year 2009, every endeavour shall be made by the learned trial Tribunal to dispose of the claim case within a period of three months. Learned counsel appearing for both sides are directed to cooperate with the learned Tribunal for an early disposal of the matter, and they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments in the matter. Liberty is granted to the Respondents-Insurance Company to raise the ground with regard to payment of interest to the claimants. In the event it is found that the delay is attributable to the Appellant before the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT