Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co vs Bibekananda Pattnayak on 10 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.280 of 2022
Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.
.... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Bibekananda Pattnayak
and Others .... Respondents
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate for Res-1 to 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.07.2025
Order No.
14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant-Company and Mr. B.P. Das, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5-
Claimants.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.29.04.2022 so
passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhanjanagar in MAC
Case No.169 of 2017. Vide the said Judgment, the
Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.39,42,000/-
// 2 //
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
4. While assailing the award, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Company vehemently contended that since
the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving on
his part and caused the accident by dashing behind the
offending truck, on the ground of contributory
negligence, the appellant could not have been saddled
with the compensation so assessed. Reliance was placed
to the evidence of O.P.W.1.
4.1. It is also contended that such statement given by
O.P.W. 1 was not controverted during his cross-
examination by the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5. It
is also contended that even though the deceased was
working as a Class-A Contractor, but no documents
were provided, save and except the ITR vide Ext-12 so
submitted for the assessment year 2016-17, much after
the death of the deceased in support of the income of the
deceased.
4.2. It is contended that in absence of any other
relevant document, basing on such an ITR submitted
much after the accident vide Ext-12, income of the
deceased could not have been taken at Rs.40,000/- per
month. It is also contended that there is delay in lodging
the FIR.
// 3 //
4.3. 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.
5. Mr. B.P.Das, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 made his submission
basing on the cross appeal filed by them. It is contended
that since the deceased was a Class-A Contractor and
doing such business in the name of a firm, ITR was so
submitted basing on the notice issued by the
department on 24.03.2021 for the assessment year
2016-17.
5.1. It is contended that since such an ITR was
submitted basing on the notice issued by the
department, it is to be held that income shown in the
said ITR, is the income of the farm and taking into
account the income so reflected, the tribunal rightly
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per
month.
5.2. It is also contended that taking into account the
number of dependants who are the claimants, the
tribunal committed a wrong by deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses in place of 1/4th. It is accordingly
// 4 //
contended that had the tribunal deducted 1/4th towards
personal expenses and the income of the deceased
would have been assessed at Rs.30,000/- per month,
even, the compensation amount would have been
calculated at Rs.32,67,000/- along with consortium to
the extent of Rs.70,000/-, which has not been allowed.
5.3. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5
contended that the claimants will have no grievance, if
the compensation amount will be reduced to
Rs.30,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of application till its realization.
6. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 5 to the discretion of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and in view
of the fact that this Court while interfering with the
impugned Judgment dtd.29.04.2022 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 5 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the application till its
realization. While holding so, this Court directs the
Appellant-Company to deposit the aforesaid
// 5 //
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 29.04.2022 in favour of the
Claimants-Respondents No.1 to 5.
7.1. 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.30,00,000/- 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.
7.2. 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.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
