Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Hemalata Rout And on 21 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.311 of 2023
Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. .... Appellant
Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
Hemalata Rout and
Others .... Respondents
Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate for R- 2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
21.03.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant-Company and Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-
Claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-company
contended that during pendency of the matter before the
Tribunal though Respondent No.1/Applicant No.1 died
on 09.06.2017, but since her name was not deleted from
the cause title, accordingly she was wrongly impleaded
as Respondent No.1 in the present appeal.
// 2 //
3.1. It is contended that since Respondent No.1 has
died during pendency of the claim application, her name
be deleted from the cause title.
4. Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants also fairly contended
that Respondent No.1/applicant No.1 has died during
pendency of the matter before the Tribunal on
09.06.2017. Even though no award has been passed in
respect of the claim of Respondent No.1, but her name
was not deleted wrongly.
5. Considering the submissions made, this Court is
inclined to permit the appellant to delete Respondent
No.1 from the Cause Title in Court.
6. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-
Company challenging Judgment dtd.17.11.2022 so
passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd
MACT, Kendrapara in MAC Case No.146 of 2014. Vide
the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.11,45,200/- along with interest @
6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the
claim application till its realization. Learned Tribunal
also allowed default interest @ 7.5% per annum.
6.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company
contended that while assessing the compensation at
Rs.11,45,200/-, the Tribunal never take into
consideration as to whether the offending Scorpio
// 3 //
bearing Registration No.OR-05-Z-4730 caused the
accident on 02.08.2010 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 while assessing the
compensation at Rs.11,45,200/-.
6.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-company further contended that without
having any material being produced by the claimants-
Respondents, the income of the deceased was taken at
Rs.8000/- per month. It is contended that on the face of
the evidence laid by P.W. no.3, who happens to be the
employer of the deceased, the monthly income of the
deceased could not have been taken at Rs.8000/-. It is
also contended that levy of default interest @ 7.5% per
annum is on the higher side.
6.3. 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. It is also
contended that default interest @ 7.5% per annum is
// 4 //
also not sustainable as it has been imposed without any
basis.
7. Even though Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimant-Respondents No.2 supported
the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended
that the Claimant-Respondents Nos.1 & 2 will have no
grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced
to Rs.9,00,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum so
awarded by the tribunal. But with regard to award of
default interest @ 7.5% per annum, learned counsel
appearing for Claimant-Respondents No.2 contended
that this Court may pass appropriate order in that
regard.
8. Ms. R.B. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company left the aforesaid proposition made
by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondents
Nos.1 & 2 to the discretion of this Court.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and after
going through the materials placed, this Court while
interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.17.11.2022
is inclined to reduce the same and held the Claimant-
Respondents No.2 entitled to get compensation amount
of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable
from the date of filing of the application till its
realization. However, this Court is inclined to quash the
// 5 //
award of default interest @ 7.5% per annum, so allowed
by the Tribunal. 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 in terms of the
judgment dated 17.11.2022 in favour of Claimant-
Respondents No.2.
9.1. 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.9,00,000/- 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.
9.2. 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.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Designation: SR. STENO Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2025 16:02:33
Basudev
