Orissa High Court
D.M vs Hadibandhu Panda And on 29 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.58 of 2014
D.M., National Insurance
Co. Ltd.
.... Appellant
Ms. S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Hadibandhu Panda and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate for R-1 & 2
\
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.04.2025
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Ms. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant-Company and Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-
Claimants. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.3
in spite of due appearance.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.07.10.2013 so
passed by the learned 1st MACT-cum-District Judge,
Dhenkanal in MAC Case No.91 of 2008. Vide the said
Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at
Rs.3,34,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
// 2 //
payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization.
3.1. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company contended that since no documents
were either produced or exhibited by the claimants-
Respondents showing the status of the deceased and the
income drawn by him prior to his death, taking into
account the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled
worker, which was at Rs.70/- per day at the relevant
point of time, monthly income of the deceased should
have been assessed at Rs.2100/-. But the Tribunal
wrongly took the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3000/- per month and accordingly the compensation
was assessed at a higher side.
3.2. It is also contended that taking into account the
age of the deceased, multiplier "17" should have been
applied, in place of multiplier "18".
3.3. 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.
// 3 //
4. Basing on the cross objection filed by the claimants,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
contended that while assessing the compensation the
tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-
per month, taking into account the status of the
deceased as an worker M/s. Visa Steel Ltd. It is
contended that in the documents exhibited by the
appellant-company vide Ext-A, such status of the
deceased as a worker of Visa Steel Limited was admitted.
4.1. It is contended that since the status of the
deceased was proved by the appellant itself as a worker
of M/s. Visa Steel Limited taking into account such
status of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly assessed the
compensation by taking the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. It is also contended
that the Tribunal while assessing the award never
awarded any compensation towards future prospect as
well as general damages. It is accordingly contended
that the compensation amount need an enhancement. It
is however contended that right of recovery has been
allowed against Owner-Respondent No.3 and appellant
can very well recover the compensation amount.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court taking into account the documents exhibited by
the appellant vide Ext-A and the status of the deceased
// 4 //
as a worker of M/s. Visa Steel Limited, is of the view
that daily income of the deceased should have been
taken as prescribed for a skilled worker. Since minimum
wages of a skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act
was Rs.90/- per day at the relevant point of time, this
Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.2700/- per month. By awarding the
compensation towards future prospect and general
damages, this Court assess the compensation at
Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, so
awarded by the Tribunal payable from the date of filing
of the application till its realization.
5.1. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-
Company to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount
of Rs.4,25,000/- along with the interest as awarded by
the tribunal payable from the date of application till its
realisation 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
07.10.2013 in favour of the Claimant-Respondents
Nos.1 and 2. This Court however confirms right of
recovery as against Respondent No.3.
5.2. 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
// 5 //
compensation amount of Rs.4,25,000/- 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.
5.3.. Since this Court is confirming right of recovery as
against Respondent No.3, it is observed that if any such
application is moved by the Appellant to recover the
amount from the Owner-Respondent No.3, the Tribunal
shall do well to dispose of the application in accordance
with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.3.
5.4. 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.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
