Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Sasmita Parida & Ors on 10 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1156 of 2024
Divisional Manager, M/s. New ..... Appellant
India Assurance Co. Mr. S. Roy, Advocate
Ltd.,Cuttack
-versus-
Sasmita Parida & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. S.C. Swain, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 5)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.03.2025
Order No.03
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-
Company and Mr. S.C. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the
Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.20.08.2024 so passed by the learned 1st
Addl. District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No. 70
of 2020. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.41,39,506/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization (with no interest as Rs.10,85,199).
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in support
of the appeal contended that the Tribunal while awarding the
compensation, wrongly held the annual income of the deceased at
Rs.3,10,057/- relying on the ITR filed for the year 2017-18 instead
of taking the average of the income in the ITR filed for the three
consecutive years i.e. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, which has
been marked as Ext. 10, 11 & 12. It is also contended that the
Tribunal while awarding the compensation, did not deduct the
amount towards interest on fixed deposits and saving bank interest
amounting to Rs.9,405/-.
4.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation never take into consideration the fact that on the date
of accident the Owner-Respondent No. 6 had violated the policy
condition by handing over the offending vehicle to an unauthorized
person to drive it on the public road. It is also contended that the
Tribunal instead of exempting the Appellant-Company from paying
the compensation, only awarded right of recovery as against Owner-
Respondent No. 6. It is also contended that Respondent No. 6 was
set ex parte before the Tribunal and challenging the right of
recovery, Respondent No. 6 has not filed any appeal.
4.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated/assessed the monthly income of the deceased, the
compensation amount so awarded should have been on the lower
side with right of recovery against Owner-Respondent No. 6. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in
the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. S.C. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 though on the other hand supported the
impugned Judgment and contended that the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation, but in course of hearing learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondents contended that the
Claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will
assess the compensation amount at Rs.37,70,000/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization, with no interest on
Rs.10,85,199/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended
that right of recovery so allowed by the Tribunal as against Owner-
Respondent No.6 be confirmed.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment, is inclined to held the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.37,70,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of application till its realization (with no interest on
Rs.10,85,199/-) and confirm the right of recovery as against Owner-
Respondent No. 6. While holding so, this Court directs the
Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of
Rs.37,70,000/- along with interest @ 6% interest per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization
(with no interest on Rs.10,85,199/-) 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 Claimants-Respondents proportionately in terms of the
Judgement dtd.20.08.2024.
7.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed is not
deposited within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the
compensation amount of Rs.37,70,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited, with no interest on Rs.10,85,199/-.
7.2. It is also observed that if any application will be filed by the
Appellant seeking recovery of the compensation from
Owner/Respondent No. 6, the same be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No. 6.
7.3. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall
be permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest if any from the Registry on proper identification.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
