IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.386 of 2008 Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cantonment Road, Cuttack …. Appellant Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate -Versus- Sushanti Mahanta & others …. Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 05.02.2026 I.A. No.562 of 2023 06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant I.A is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking delay condonation in preferring the appeal beyond the stipulated period. 3. A delay of 86 days is reported as per the SR. 4. No objection to the I.A. is filed. Considering the explanation offered by the appellant and oral objection of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants, the Court is inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. The I.A. is disposed of with the delay being condoned. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge MACA No.386 of 2008 07. 1. A memo is filed by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents with annexures, such as, the copies of the Death Certificates of respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the same is taken on record. In view of the death of the above respondents, they are deleted from the cause list. The Court directs their deletion as respondents in the case record. It is submitted to the Court that no substitution is necessary, since the LR, namely, respondent No.3 is already on record. 2. Office is to carry out the above order. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of by the following order. 4. Instant appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award in MAC Case No.107 of 2005 dated 15th December, 2007 directed by the learned 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar on the grounds stated. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the insured vehicle. 6. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% on the compensation amount of Rs.1,68,400/-, which is on the higher side and hence, it should be less and to be fixed at 6% per annum. In fact, the learned Tribunal allowed the compensation payable to the respondents at such an interest from the date of application till the payment with a further direction that 90% of the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit with any nationalized Bank for a period of five years. 7. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the said amount, which is directed to be deposited should be in the ratio of 70%:30% allowing the Insurance Company to recover the same from respondent No.1, which is inadvertently left out in the operative part of the award though it has been directed. Considering the submissions as above and since the Court finds that the rate of interest @ 9% per annum is exorbitant, the same needs modification and hence, fixed at 6% instead. The Court is also of the view that the ratio towards fixed deposit of 70% with release of 30% of the same in favour of respondent No.3 should be directed allowing the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from respondent No.1 and accordingly, it is ordered. No other ground has been pressed by the Insurance Company. In such view of the matter, the impugned award in MAC Case No.107 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid. Consequently, the MACA stands disposed of. It is directed that the Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of compensation within eight weeks from today before the learned Tribunal and upon submission of the receipt towards such deposit, the statutory amount shall be released immediately with the accrued interest in its favour. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT