Orissa High Court
D.M vs Suman Devi Poddar And on 4 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1041 of 2023
D.M., Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., BBSR
.... Appellant
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Suman Devi Poddar and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate for R-1 to 7
Mr. T. Dash, Advocate for Owner
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.04.2025
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company and Mr. B.P. Mohanty,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to
7-Claimants.
3. Since legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.10
are already on record, no substitution is required to be
made. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to
delete Respondent No.10 from the Cause Title in Court.
// 2 //
4. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.30.08.2022 so
passed by the learned 7th MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC
Case No.09 of 2016. Vide the said Judgment, the
Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.38,00,920/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.38,00,920/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Car bearing
Registration No.OD-02-F-8259 caused the accident on
13/14.11.2015 and whether due to the rash and
negligent driving of the accused driver, accident
occurred, causing death of the deceased. It is contended
that even though such a plea was taken before the
Tribunal by the Appellant-Company, but the same was
never taken into consideration.
4.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that without
having any concrete proof, basing on Ext-2, the monthly
income of the deceased was taken at Rs.30,000/-.
Because of such wrong committed by the tribunal, the
compensation was assessed at the higher side.
4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-company contended that
// 3 //
had the Tribunal properly appreciated the stand of the
Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded would
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. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 7
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 7
will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will
be reduced to Rs.28,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of application till its
realization.
6. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 7 to the discretion of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and in view
of the fact that this Court while interfering with the
impugned Judgment dtd.30.08.2022 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 7 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.28,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the application till its
realization. While holding so, this Court directs the
// 4 //
Appellant-Company to deposit the aforesaid
compensation amount along with interest within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. On such deposit of the amount, learned tribunal
shall do well to disburse the amount proportionately in
terms of the judgment dated 30.08.2022 in favour of the
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 7.
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.28,00,000/- shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from
the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till it is
deposited before the Tribunal.
7.2. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount
as directed, appellant will be permitted to take refund of
the statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any
from the Registry on proper identification.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 05-Apr-2025 16:02:52
