Orissa High Court
Sekh Khorban vs Pradipta Kumar Mohanty And on 9 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1127 of 2016
Sekh Khorban ..... Appellant
Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Pradipta Kumar Mohanty and ..... Respondents
Others Ms. P. Mishra, Advocate for
Respondent No.3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
09.01.2025
Order No. 10 I.A. No.3 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Claimant and Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.3-company.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
4. I.A. is disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded
by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur vide Judgment
dtd.05.04.2016 in MAC Case No.178 of 2009.
3. In support of the enhancement, learned counsel for the appellant
contended on the face of the claim made to the tune of Rs.90,000/-,
the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed
before it, only awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
application till its realization.
3.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation never take into consideration the injury sustained by
the injured and the expenses incurred towards medicine and other
ancillary expenses. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal
properly appreciated the stand of the Appellant, the compensation
amount so awarded would have been on the higher side. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned award requires
interference with enhancement of the award. It is also contended
that the award so passed has not yet been satisfied.
3.2. However, in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Claimant contended that if this Court will allow
compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- consolidated, ends of justice
will be met.
4. Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.3-Company though supported the impugned award but to the
submission made for award compensation of Rs.10,000/-
consolidated by the learned counsel for Appellant, leave the same to
the discretion of this Court. It is however fairly contended that the
award has not yet been satisfied.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court is inclined to dispose
of the appeal by holding that the Appellant-Claimant is entitled to
get compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- consolidated. While
holding so, this Court directs Respondent No.3-Company to deposit
the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- consolidated
before the Tribunal within a period of four (4) weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the same in favour of the Appellant-Claimant in full.
5.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period, the compensation
amount of Rs.10,000/- consolidated will carry interest @ 6% per
annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period
of four (4) weeks till the amount is so deposited.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Jan-2025 11:30:28 Page 3 of 3.
