Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sulekha Behera
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.812 of 2016 From the Judgment / Order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned 4th MACT, Baripada in MAC Case No.66 of 2012. ..................
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.
....
Appellant -versusSulekha Behera & Others ....
Respondents For Appellant :
M/s. A.A.Khan, S.K.Mishra, C.R.Dalai, S.K.Sahoo & J J.P.Tripathy.
For Respondents :
M/s. B.Singh, P.B.Singh, T.K.Dash & S.K.Bose.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:12.05.2022 and Date of Order:18.05.2022 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2.
Heard Mr.
A.A.Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B.Singh, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
3.
This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed in MAC Case No.66 / 2012 by the learned 4th MACT, Baripada. 4.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Tribunal while directing payment
// 2 // of the compensation amount of Rs.4,47,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of the application till its realization, but learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the objection made by the Appellant-Company with regard to the monthly income of the deceased.
5.
It is also submitted that even though violation of the policy condition was raised, but no right of recovery was also allowed and interest was allowed @ 7% per annum, which is on the higher side.
6.
Mr. Khan, further submitted that in absence of any material in support of the income, learned Tribunal wrongly held the said income @ of Rs.6,000/- per month. 7.
Accordingly, Mr. Khan prayed for interference of this Court with regard to the compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal.
8.
Mr. Singh learned counsel for the ClaimantsRespondents though supported the same, but failed to satisfy this Court with regard to the stand taken by the Appellant-Company with regard to the monthly income taken by the learned Tribunal while deciding the matter. 9.
Heard learned counsel for the Parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. After going through the same, this Court when came to a conclusion that the Claimants-Respondents will be entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of application till its
// 3 // realization, Mr. Singh learned counsel for the ClaimantsRespondents supported the said view of this Court.
10. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-Company left the said view to the discretion of this Court.
11. In view of such stand taken by the learned counsel for the Parties, this Court directs the Appellant-Company to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application i.e. 25.06.2012 till its realization within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order with right of recovery as against the Owner - Respondent No.3.
12. It is directed that the Appellant-Company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest so assessed by this Court before the learned Tribunal within the aforesaid period.
13. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimants-Respondents proportionately and in terms of the earlier order passed on 28.10.2015.
14. It is however observed that if the Appellant-Company fails to deposit the amount so directed hereinabove, the Claimants-Respondents will be entitled to get interest @ 7 % per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.3,90,000/- for the period starting from the expiry the period of eight weeks till its payment.
15. It is also observed that since this Court is allowing right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent No.3, if any such application is filed by the Appellant-Company for
// 4 // recovery of the amount, the said Respondent No.3 shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and learned Tribunal shall decide the said application strictly in accordance with law.
16. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount so directed hereinabove, the AppellantCompany shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit from the Registry of this Court on proper identification.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions the MACA stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 18th of May, 2022/Subrat