The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.817 of 2020 Divisional Manager, D.O.-II, National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. B.N. Udgata, Advocate Basanti Sahoo @ Panda & Ors. ..... -versus- Respondents Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Respondent Nos.. 1 & 2) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 26.09.2024 I.A. No. 1464 of 2020 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Considering the grounds taken and the fact that the delay is caused during the Covid Pandemic period, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. I.A. is disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge 06. MACA No. 817 of 2020 1. Heard Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.05.12.2019 so passed by the 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No. 503/230 of 2009-08. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.4,50,800/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of the Page 1 of 4. claim application till its realization. The Tribunal also awarded default interest @ 8% per annum, if the compensation so assessed is not deposited within a period of three (3) months. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation wrongly saddled the liability on the Appellant- Company instead of Respondent No. 3-Owner because at the time of accident the deceased was travelling on the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, which runs contrary to the terms and condition of the policy. 3.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal wrongly held that the Claimants-Respondents are dependent on the deceased, whereas it is found that Respondent No. 1 after death of the deceased remarried to her brother in law and accordingly they cannot be treated as dependant of the deceased in legal prospective. 3.2. It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed before it, wrongly held the age of the deceased at 28 years, applied multiplier ‘17’ and deducted 1/3rd from the income towards personal expenditure. It is also contended that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation, wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month and loss of income @ 40% towards future prospects, even though deceased was not a skilled employee nor having any fixed salary income. It is also contended that the Tribunal wrongly saddled the liability on the Appellant-Company instead of Respondent No. 3- Owner and assessed the compensation at the higher side so also the award of interest @ 7%. It is further contended that award of default interest @ 8% per annum is also not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 2 of 4. 3.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel for the Appellant- Company contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the aforesaid contentions so raised by the Appellant, the compensation amount would have been on the lower side. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and needs interference of this Court. 4. Even though Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents supported the impugned Judgment, but in course of hearing contended that the Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. With regard to award of 8% default interest learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Claimants contended that this Court can pass appropriate order in that regard 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No. 3 as the Owner-Respondent No. 3 never contested the matter and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while waiving out the default interest levied @ 8% per annum, is inclined to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.4,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing the application till its realization and allows right of recovery as against Respondent No. 3. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant- Page 3 of 4. Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.4,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimants-Respondents proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 05.12.2019. 6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.4,20,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 6.2. It is further observed that if any such application for recovery of the amount against Respondent No. 3 will be moved by the Appellant, learned Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the same in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3. 6.3. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Oct-2024 10:57:53 Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 4 of 4.