Orissa High Court
Manager vs Priyatama Jethi And on 9 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.94 of 2025
Manager, Claim-(Legal)
IFFCO-TOKIO General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Khurda .... Appellant
Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Priyatama Jethi and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1 to 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
09.04.2025
I.A. No.279 of 2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
1. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel entered
appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 by
// 2 //
filing Vakalatnama in Court. The same be kept in
record.
2. Since it is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties that the quantum is only in
dispute, this Court is not inclined to issue fresh notice
on Respondent No.6.
3. Heard Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5-
Claimants.
4. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.07.08.2024 so
passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No.125 of 2021. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.28,28,750/- along with interest @
6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization. Learned Tribunal
also allowed penal interest @ 8% per annum.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.28,28,750/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Truck bearing
Registration No. MH-04-JK-2078 caused the accident on
04.05.2021 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
// 3 //
such a plea was taken before the Tribunal by the
Appellant-Company, but the same was never taken into
consideration while assessing the compensation at
Rs.28,28,750/-.
4.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that the Tribunal
without proper appreciation held the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.16,500/-. It is also contended that
the Tribunal ought to have held the income of the
deceased at Rs.321/- per day as an unskilled worker
instead of taking the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.16,500/-, which is on the higher side. The tribunal
also awarded compensation towards Parental
consortium, filial consortium and pecuniary damages,
which are on the higher side. The tribunal also awarded
default interest @ 8%, without any basis.
4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant-company contended that
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. It is also
contended that default interest @ 8% per annum is also
not sustainable as it has been imposed without any
basis.
// 4 //
5. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 5
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 5
will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will
be reduced to Rs.25,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per
annum so awarded by the tribunal. But with regard to
award of default interest @ 8% per annum, learned
counsel appearing for Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 5
contended that this Court may pass appropriate order in
that regard.
6. Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents
Nos.1 to 5 to the discretion of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and after
going through the materials placed, this Court while
interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.07.08.2024
is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant-
Respondents Nos.1 to 5 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the application
till its realization. However, this Court is inclined to
quash the award of default interest @ 8% per annum, so
allowed by the Tribunal. While holding so, this Court
directs the Appellant-Company to deposit the aforesaid
compensation amount along with interest within a
// 5 //
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 07.08.2024 in favour of the
Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 5.
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.25,00,000/- 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
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Apr-2025 17:30:37
