Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Das And vs Velumani R. And Another on 14 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.652 of 2020
Sanjukta Das and ..... Appellants
Others Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Velumani R. and Another .....
Respondents
Mr. A.A. Khan, Adv. for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
14.07.2025
Order No. 09 I.A. No.1080 of 2020
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Perused the Tracking Report. Since notice has been duly
served on Respondent No.1, notice against the said respondent is
treated as sufficient.
4. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
5. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Perused the Tracking Report. Since notice has been duly served on
Respondent No.1, notice against the said respondent is treated as
sufficient.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants-Claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the learned 2nd
MACT (Southern Division), Berhampur, Ganjam vide Judgment
dtd.23.03.2020 in MAC Case No.224/2019. Vide the said Judgment the
Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.12,51,250/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization.
4. In support of the enhancement, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants-Claimants contended that the Tribunal though held the income
of the deceased at Rs.280/- per day, but calculated the same at Rs.7500/-
per month instead of Rs.8400/-.
4.1. It is also contended had the Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.8400/- per month, the appellants-claimants would have
been entitled to get a further compensation amount of Rs.1,41,750/-. The
accident having been taken place in the year 2019, the appellants would
have also got interest on the same. It is accordingly contended that the
compensation so awarded requires substantial enhancement.
4.2. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants contended that if this Court will allow further
compensation amount of Rs.1,40,000/- consolidated, ends of justice will
be met.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondent No. 2-
Company though supported the impugned award and contended that the
award has been fully satisfied in the meantime, but to the submission
made for award of further compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- consolidated by
the learned counsel for 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 while interfering with the
impugned award, is inclined to dispose of the appeal by holding that the
Appellants-Claimants are entitled to get further compensation amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- consolidated. While holding so, this Court directs
Respondent No.2-Company to deposit the aforesaid further compensation
amount of Rs.1,40,000/- 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 full.
6.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited by Respondent No.2 within the aforesaid time period, the
compensation amount of Rs.1,40,000/- 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
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2025 10:53:20
