Orissa High Court
M/S. Icici Lombard General vs Rasmita Kumri Nayak & on 12 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.8 of 2024
M/s. ICICI Lombard General ... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. A. Dash, Advoate
-versus-
Rasmita Kumri Nayak & ... Respondents
Others
Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate for R-1 to 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.03.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos..1 to 3.
In spite of due service of notice, no appearance has
been made on behalf of Respondent No.4.
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant inter
alia challenging the judgment dated 04.11.2023
passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge-
cum-4th MACT, Berhampur in M.A.C. No.79 of 2020.
Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal allowed
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,16,90,621/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date
of filing of the claim application till its realization.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that taking into the ITR submitted by the claimant for
the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19,
the average of the income reflected in the three ITRs,
should have been taken into consideration while
assessing the annual income of the deceased. But the
Tribunal committed wrong by taking the income
reflected in the ITR for the year 2018-19 as the annual
income of the deceased. It is also contended that in
her evidence before the Tribunal, respondent no.1
clearly admitted that the claimants/respondent nos.1
to 3 were only dependent on the deceased. In view of
such admission, 1/3rd of the annual income should
have been deducted towards personal expenses,
instead of 1/4th. Making all the submissions learned
counsel for the appellant-company contended that the
impugned award needs interference of this Court.
6. Mr. D. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand contended
that since in the ITRs exhibited before the Tribunal, it
is quite visible that gross income of the deceased was
increasing every year, the Tribunal committed no
wrong by taking the income shown in the ITR for the
year 2018-19 as the annual income of the deceased.
However, it is contended in course of hearing that if
this Court will reduce the compensation amount to
Rs.95,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realization,
the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 will have no
grievance.
7. Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company, left the aforesaid proposition
made by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1
to 3 for award of compensation at Rs.95,00,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum to the discretion of this
Court.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court
while interfering with the impugned Judgment
dtd.4.11.2023, is inclined to reduce the same and held
the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Performa
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 entitled to get compensation
amount of Rs.95,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the
application till its realization.
8.1. 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 the amount proportionately in terms of the
judgment dated 4.11.2023 in favour of the Claimants-
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Performa Respondent
Nos.4 and 5.
8.2. 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 of Rs.95,00,000/-
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.
8.3. 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.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
