Orissa High Court
D.M vs Chakradhar Sahu & Ors on 1 October, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.207 of 2024
D.M., Oriental Insurance Co. ..... Appellant
Ltd., Sundergarh Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Chakradhar Sahu & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Srinibas Mohanty, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 4)
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.10.2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company, Mr. Srinibas Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondents and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Owner-Respondent No. 5.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging
Judgment dtd.31.10.2023 so passed by the 4th MACT, Keonjhar in
MAC Case No. 47/207 of 2022-2019. Vide the said Judgment the
Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.18,64,676/- along with
interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that the Tribunal basing on the photo
copy of the pay slip, which has not been exhibited, wrongly held the
income of the deceased at Rs.11,692/- per month instead of
Rs.8,580/-, as per the prescribed minimum wages of an unskilled
workman. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation, never take into consideration the fact that the
deceased died due to his own negligence.
4.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the materials placed, while wrongly assessed the
compensation at Rs.18,64,676/-, also allowed interest @ 7% per
annum, which is on the higher side. It is also contended that even
though the Tribunal came to a conclusion that Appellant is entitled
to recover the compensation from the Owner-Respondent No. 5, but
right of recovery as agaisnt Respondent No.5-Owner was not
allowed.
4.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated/assessed the monthly income of the deceased, the
compensation amount so awarded should have been on the lower
side. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award is not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Even though Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondents supported the impugned award, but in
course of hearing contended that Claimants-Respondents will have
no grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
6. 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.
5.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment dtd.31.10.2023, allows right of recovery
against Owner-Respondent No. 5 and held the Claimants-
Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing
of the claim application till its realization. This Court accordingly
while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit
compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- 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 31.10.2023.
7.1. 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.15,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment.
7.2. It is also observed that if any such application is moved by the
Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No. 5,
the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.5 - Owner.
7.3. It is further observed that since the statutory deposit has not
been invested, the cheque be returned back to the learned counsel
for the Appellant after satisfaction of the award.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
