Orissa High Court
Chief Regional vs Chandrasekhar Sahu & on 13 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1104 of 2023
Chief Regional ..... Appellant
Manager, M/s. New Mr. S.K. Sarangi,
India Assurance Co. Sr.Adv.
-versus-
Chandrasekhar Sahu & ..... Respondents
Another Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv.
(for Respondent No.1)
Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Adv.
(for Respondent No.2)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.02.2025
Order No.5
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2 . Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-company
challenging the compensation awarded by the learned
2ndAddl. District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar vide
judgment dt.10.07.2023 in MAC Case No.96 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended
that vide the said judgment, the Tribunal without proper
appreciation of the materials placed before it, allowed
compensation to the tune of Rs.17,62,763/- along with
interest @6% per annum payable from the date of
application till its realization.The Tribunal also awarded
default interest @ 8%, if the compensation so assessed is
not deposited within a period of one (1) month.
4.1.Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that the Tribunal without any basis has
wrongly assessed the income of the claimant-respondent
No.1 @ Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also contended that
taking into account the disability of the injured, learned
Tribunal wrongly assessed the loss of income of the
respondent No.1 at 65%.
4.2. It is also contended that learned Tribunal wrongly
awarded 25% towards future prospects as taking into
account the age of the injured, the same should have been
assessed at 10%. It is further contended that award of
default interest @ 8% per annum is also not sustainable in
the eye of law.
4.3.It is contended that had the Tribunal appreciated the
aforesaid contention, so raised by the Appellant-Company,
the assessed compensation and the rate of interest would
have been calculated at a lower side than awarded vide the
impugned judgment.
5. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 supported the impugned
judgment, but in course of hearing contended that
claimant-Respondent No.1 will be fully satisfied, if this
Court will reduce the compensation to the tune of
Rs.13,50,000/- along with interest @6% per annum.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company
to the aforesaid proposition so laid by the learned counsel
for the Claimant-Respondent No.1 leave it to the discretion
of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
interfering with the impugned judgment is inclinedto
waive out the default interest levied @ 8% per annum and
reduce the compensation to Rs.13,50,000/-along with
interest @6% per annum. This Court accordingly directs
the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount
of Rs.13,50,000/- along with interest @6% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realisation
within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
7.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the
Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of
the Claimant-Respondent No.1 in terms of the judgement
passed on 10.07.2023
7.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company
will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the
time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount
of Rs.13,50,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum
payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight)
weeks till it is so deposited.
7.3. It is observed that only after deposit of the
amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be
permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along
with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification.
The M.A.C.A is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
