Orissa High Court
Manager (T/P Cell) vs Mamata Mohanty And on 28 February, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.71 of 2024
Manager (T/P Cell), M/s.
New India Assurance
Company Ltd., Cuttack
.... Appellant
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Mamata Mohanty and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. J. Mohanty, Advocate for R-1 to 6
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
28.02.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company on behalf of Mr. A.A. Khan,
learned counsel and Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6-Claimants.
Copy of Ext-13 produced in Court be kept in record.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.30.09.2023 so
passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-1st
MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No.600 of 2019. Vide the
said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation
// 2 //
at Rs.70,30,206/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization. Learned Tribunal also allowed default
interest @ 12% per annum.
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.70,30,206/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Bus bearing
Registration No. OR-16-D-3755 caused the accident on
08.05.2019 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 while assessing the compensation at
Rs.70,30,206/-.
3.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that the Tribunal
while awarding the compensation did not take into
consideration the stand that the accident took place due
to fault of the deceased as the deceased dashed his
Motor Cycle when the offending bus was standing in the
parking lot and was not moving on the road. It is also
contended that the tribunal while awarding the
compensation did not take into consideration the
admission of the P.W.1 who is none other than the wife
of the deceased that deceased used to sent Rs.20,000/-
// 3 //
per month which is 50% of his monthly salary towards
his living personal expenditure. It is also contended that
award of default interest @ 12% per annum is on the
higher side.
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. It is also
contended that default interest @ 12% per annum is also
not sustainable as it has been imposed without any
basis.
4. Even though Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 6
supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing
contended that the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 6
will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will
be reduced to Rs.65,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per
annum so awarded by the tribunal. But with regard to
award of default interest @ 12% per annum, learned
counsel appearing for Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 6
contended that this Court may pass appropriate order in
that regard.
// 4 //
5. Mr. S.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents
Nos.1 to 6 to the discretion of this Court.
6. 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.30.09.2023
is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant-
Respondents Nos.1 to 6 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.65,00,000/- 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 @ 12% 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
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 30.09.2023 in favour of the
Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 to 6.
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.65,00,000/- shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from
// 5 //
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
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Mar-2025 18:48:39
