Orissa High Court
National Insurance Company vs Amit Kumar Sahoo & Anr on 20 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.804 of 2024
National Insurance Company ..... Appellant
Ltd., Cuttack Ms. N. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Amit Kumar Sahoo & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate
(Respondent No. 1)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.03.2025
Order No.05
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. N. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.13.12.2023 so passed by the learned 1st
Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Rourkela in MAC Case No.
165 of 2020. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.32,88,800/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company in support
of the appeal contended that the Tribunal while awarding the
compensation, wrongly held the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- without having any material documents being placed by
the Claimant-Respondent.
4.1. It is also contended that taking into account the profession of
the deceased, if the Tribunal would have taken the minimum wages
prescribed for a skilled labourer at Rs.326.38p. per day, the
compensation amount should have been assessed at Rs.22,00,000/-
along with interest @ 6%. Even though factum of contributory
negligence was pleaded, but that was not considered by the Tribunal
while awarding the compensation.
4.2. 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. 2. It is also
contended that Respondent No. 2 was set ex parte before the
Tribunal and challenging the right of recovery, Respondent No. 2
has not filed any appeal.
4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated/assessed the income of the deceased, the compensation
amount so awarded should have been on the lower side with right of
recovery against Owner-Respondent No. 1. It is accordingly
contended that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of
law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-
Respondent No. 1 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 Claimant-Respondent No. 2 contended that the Claimant-
Respondent will be fully satisfied, if this Court will assess the
compensation amount at Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while left
the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the
Claimant-Respondent to the discretion of this Court, contended that
right of recovery so allowed by the Tribunal as against Owner-
Respondent No.2 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 Claimant-
Respondent No. 1 entitled to get compensation amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of application till its realization and confirm the right of
recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 2 as it is contended that
challenging the right, Owner-Respondent No. 2 has not filed any
appeal. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant-Company
to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- along with
interest @ 6% interest per annum payable from the date of filing of
the claim application till its realization 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 Claimant-Respondent No. 1 in full in terms of the
Judgement dtd.13.12.2023.
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.22,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7%
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till the
amount is so deposited.
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. 2, the same be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No. 2.
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
