Orissa High Court
B.M vs Anjali Padhan & Others on 15 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.783 of 2023
B.M., Oriental Insurance .... Appellant
Co., Ltd.
Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
-versus-
Anjali Padhan & Others
.... Respondents
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Adv. for
Resp. 1
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
15.04.2025
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia
challenging the judgment dtd.06.05.2023 so passed by
the learned 1st ADJ-cum-MACT(IV), Balangir in MAC
Case No.13/21/25 of 2014/18/21. Vide the said
judgment, the Tribunal assessed the compensation
amount of Rs.18,00,940/- along with @ 7 % per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
// 2 //
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-claimant contended that
even though FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle
(Tractor and Trolley), but the offending vehicle was only
seized after about eight months of the accident.
4.1. It is accordingly contended that the vehicle was
planted at the instance of the claimants which was not
properly enquired into by the I.O.
4.2. A further contention was raised that since
deceased was working as a Block Resource Teacher,
his monthly income could not have been taken at
Rs.10,000/- per month.
4.3. A further contention was also made that award of
interest @ 7% per annum is on the higher side.
4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also
contended that during pendency of the present claim
application so filed by the claimants in MAC Case
No.13/21/25 of 2014/18/21, another claim application
was filed by the parents of the deceased in MAC Case
No.67 of 2014 in the file of learned 1st ADJ-cum-
MACT(IV), Balangir.
4.5. It is also contended that in the claim application
filed by the claimants/respondents, the parents of the
deceased who are class-I heirs since were not arrayed
as claimants, the claim application suffers from non-
// 3 //
joinder of necessary parties. Making all these
submissions, it is contended that the impugned award
needs interference of this Court.
5. Mr. D.D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing
for the Claimant-Respondents on the other hand
contended that pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on dtd.27.03.2025 an affidavit has been filed by
the claimants-Respondent No.1 enclosing therein copy
of the order dtd.08.08.2022 so passed in MAC Case
No.67 of 2014.
5.1. It is contended that claim application filed by the
parents of the deceased has since been dismissed vide
order dtd.08.08.2022 and such an order of dismissal
was passed basing on the petition filed by the mother of
the deceased, applicant no.1 in MAC Case No.67/2014.
5.2. It is also contented that applicant no.2 in MAC
Case No.67 of 2014 has already died.
5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the claim
application in MAC Case No.67 of 2014 has been
dismissed on the request made by the applicant no.1
(mother of the deceased), the present claim application
so allowed by the Tribunal be upheld.
5.4. It is however fairly contended that share as due
and admissible to the parents of the deceased be also
determined and the award so passed be apportioned in
// 4 //
between the present claimants-respondents and the
parents of the deceased.
5.5. It is further contended that since the deceased
was working as a Block Resource Teacher and in
support of his income the salary certificate was
exhibited vide Ext.8 and such exhibit clearly shows
that the salary drawn by the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
per month, no wrong can be found with the same so
relied on by the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation. However, with regard to the grant of
interest @ 7% per annum, learned counsel appearing
for the claimant-respondents contended that
appropriate order can be passed by this Court. Not only
that learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents
further contended that the Claimant/Respondents will
have no grievance if this Court reduce the
compensation to Rs.17,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of application till its
realization.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court while interfering with the impugned judgment
held the claimants-respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and the
parents of the deceased entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of application till its
realization.
// 5 //
6.1. Since it is the contention of the claimants that the
father of the deceased is no more, share of the father as
due and admissible be apportioned in between the
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as well as the mother
of the deceased. A fresh order of apportionment be
passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants-
respondents Nos.1 & 2 and mother of the deceased
with release of the compensation amount in accordance
with law.
6.2. Since this Court is directing for apportionment of
the share in between the present claimants and the
parents of the deceased, this Court permits the
appellant to deposit the entire awarded amount before
the Tribunal by way of an account cheque drawn in the
name of the Tribunal.
6.3. However, it is observed that if the amount as held
is not deposited within the aforesaid time period, the
same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the
period starting from expiry of the period of eight weeks
till the amount is so deposited.
6.4. Statutory deposit along with accrued interest be
refunded to the appellant on proper identification after
deposit of the entire compensation amount as held by
this Court.
// 6 //
7. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
