Orissa High Court
D.M vs Sonali Mohanty And on 6 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.560 of 2023
D.M., M/s. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., BBSR
.... Appellant
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Sonali Mohanty and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Pattanaik, Advocate for R-1 to 6
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
06.03.2025
Order No.
05. 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. P.C. Pattanaik,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to
6-Claimants.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.23.12.2022 so
passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Puri in MAC Case
No.235/225 of 2007. Vide the said Judgment, the
Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.8,26,000/-
// 2 //
along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the
date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.8,26,000/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending vehicle
bearing Registration No.OR-13-C-7669 caused the
accident on 18.07.2007 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.
3.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that without
having any material, the tribunal held the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, which is not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that
even if taking into account the evidence available,
deceased would have been treated as a mechanic, then
the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer
which was prescribed at Rs.90/- per day at the relevant
point of time, should have been taken into account. But
the Tribunal held the monthly income at Rs.4000/-
which is on the higher side. It is also contended that
rate of interest allowed @ 7%, is on the higher side.
// 3 //
3.3. It is also contended that taking into account the
evidence of the claimant-wife, the age of the deceased
should have been taken in between 58 to 60 years and
accordingly multiplier "9" should have been applied in
place of multiplier "15". It is also contended that an
amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the claimants under no
fault liability is required to be adjusted from the
compensation amount to be determined by this Court.
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.
4. Mr. P.C. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 6 on the other hand
placing reliance on the age of the deceased so reflected
in the Voter I.D. Card as well as in the Post Mortem
Report, contended that the deceased at the time of death
was 35 years old. (Photocopy of the Voter I.D. Card along
with post mortem report so produced in Court be kept in
record).
4.1. It is however contended in course of hearing that
Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 6 will have no grievance,
if the compensation amount will be reduced to
// 4 //
Rs.7,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of application till its realization and
amount of Rs.50,000/- received under no fault liability
is adjusted.
5. 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 4 to the discretion of this Court. However, it is
contended that right of recovery so allowed by the
tribunal be confirmed as challenging such right, no
appeal has been preferred by the Owner-Respondent
No.7.
6. 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.23.12.2022 is inclined to
reduce the same and held the Claimants-Respondent
Nos.1 to 6 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.6,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the application till its
realization.
6.1. 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
// 5 //
the amount proportionately in terms of the judgment
dated 23.12.2022 in favour of the Claimants-
Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Right of recovery as allowed
against Owner-Respondent is however confirmed.
6.2. 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 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.
6.3. It is also observed that if any such application is
moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the
Owner-Respondent, the Tribunal shall do well to dispose
of the application in accordance with law and by giving
due opportunity of hearing to Respondent- Owner.
6.4. 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
Digitally Signed Basudev
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Mar-2025 16:17:42
