Orissa High Court
D.M vs Sabitri Chhetri & Ors on 29 August, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.961 of 2023
D.M., M/s. National Insurance ..... Appellant
Co. Ltd. Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Sabitri Chhetri & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.08.2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that he
has already paid the welfare stamp of Rs.10/- on 27.08.2024. In
view of the same, defect to that effect is ignored.
3. Heard Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
4. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.29.04.2023 so passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge-
cum-5th MACT, Rourkela in MAC No. 46 of 2021. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal while disposing the matter allowed
compensation in favour of the Claimants to the tune of
Rs.10,80,592/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the application till its realization.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in support of the
appeal contended that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of
the Voter ID card, held the age of the deceased at 54 years in place
of 57 years and thereby applied a wrong multiplier. It is also
contended that the Tribunal while disposing the claim never take
into consideration the materials placed by the Appellant-Company
with regard to negligence on the part of the deceased for causing the
accident in question. It is also contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle at the relevant point of time had no valid and
effective driving license. Making all these submissions, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that the
award of compensation so made by the Tribunal vide the impugned
Judgment is on the higher side and requires interference of this
Court.
6. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondents though on the other hand supported the impugned
Judgment and contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
compensation, but in course of hearing learned counsel appearing
for the Claimants-Respondents contended that the Claimants-
Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will assess the
compensation at Rs.10,20,000/- without interfering with the interest
allowed @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant with regard to the
aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel appearing for the
Claimant-Respondents for reducing the compensation amount from
Rs.10,80,592/- to 10,20,000/- without interfering with the award of
interest left the same to the discretion of this Court.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dt.29.04.2023, held the Claimants-
Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.10,20,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing
of the claim application till its realization. This Court while holding
so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount
of Rs.10,20,000/- 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 29.04.2023.
8.1. 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.10,20,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment. On such deposit of the entire amount as directed,
Appellant-Company will be permitted to take back refund of the
statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any from the Registry
on proper identification.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Sep-2024 12:36:19
