Orissa High Court
M/S. Icici Lombard G.I vs Kunjalata Mohanta And on 29 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.665 of 2024
M/s. ICICI Lombard G.I.
Co. Ltd.
.... Appellant
Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Kunjalata Mohanta and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for R-1 and 2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.04.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Claimants.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.19.02.2022 so passed by the
learned 1st MACT, Balasore in MAC Case No.226 of 2021.
Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.14,02,324/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim
application till its realization.
// 2 //
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended
that while assessing the compensation at Rs.14,02,324/-,
the Tribunal never take into consideration as to whether the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-09-P-6019
caused the accident on 04.06.2021 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 such a plea was taken before the Tribunal by
the Appellant-Company, but the same was never taken into
consideration.
3.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that the tribunal
committed error by discarding the contents of the FIR, so
filed by brother of the deceased, that at the time of accident
the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by one Bhakta
Bandhu Mohanta. But subsequently Dilip Kumar Mohanta
was shown as the actual driver though he did not possess a
valid Driving License.
3.3. It is contended that Tribunal also committed wrong by
relying on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W. 2 stated in his cross
examination that the driver did not suffer any injury. It is
also contended that as per newspaper publication, the
insured vehicle was driven by Bhakta Bandhu Mahanta and
the deceased was the helper. The said driver also stated in
his evidence that he sustained injuries and was carried to
hospital by 108 Ambulance with the help of the local people.
It is also contended that in place of multiplier "17" multiplier
// 3 //
"16" should have been applied, taking into account the age of
the deceased.
3.4. 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.
4. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 supported the
impugned award, but in course of hearing contended that
the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 will have no grievance,
if the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.13,30,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of application till its realization.
5. Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made by
the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2
to the discretion of this Court.
6. 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.19.02.2024 is inclined to reduce the same and
held the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest @ 6%
// 4 //
per annum payable from the date of filing of the application
till its realization. While holding so, this Court directs the
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
19.02.2024 in favour of the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 &
6.1. 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.13,30,000/- 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.
6.2. 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.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-May-2025 11:30:43
