Orissa High Court
Sabitri Nayak And Others vs Pulak Debnath And Another on 27 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.791 of 2019
Sabitri Nayak and Others ..... Appellants
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Pulak Debnath and Another
..... Respondents
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for
Respondent No.2-company
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
27.01.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants-Claimants, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.2-company.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants-Claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the
learned 1st M.A.C.T., Puri vide Judgment dtd.18.09.2019 in MAC
Case No.18 of 2017.
4. In support of the enhancement, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the Tribunal without proper appreciation, held the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/-, even though deceased
was a mason. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants-
Claimants contended that on the face of the claim made to the tune
of Rs.16,00,000/-, the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the
materials placed before it, only awarded compensation amount of
Rs.5,98,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the application till its realization.
4.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation never take into consideration the future prospect at
25% of income, as the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time
of accident. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal
properly appreciated the stand of the Appellants and assessed the
monthly income of the deceased, the compensation amount so
awarded would have been on the higher side. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of
law and requires interference of this Court.
4.2. However, in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants-Claimants contended that if this Court will allow further
compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- consolidated, ends of justice
will be met.
5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.2-Company though supported the impugned award but to the
submission made for award of further compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- consolidated by the learned counsel for the
Appellants, leave the same to the discretion of this Court.
6. 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 Appellants-Claimants are entitled
to get further compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- consolidated.
While holding so, this Court directs Respondent No. 2-Company to
deposit the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
consolidated before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) 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 Appellants-
Claimants in terms of the Judgment dtd.18.09.2019.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period, the compensation
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- consolidated will carry interest @ 6% per
annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period
of eight (8) weeks till the amount is so deposited.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
