Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.554 of 2024 M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. N.B. Das, Adv. -versus- Mandakini Bhosagar & Others ..... Respondents Mr. K.C. Nayak, Adv. (for Respondent Nos.1 to 7) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.02.2025 Order No.2 I.A. No.1321 of 2024 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Considering the submission made, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- before the Orissa High Court Bar Association welfare fund by 24.02.2025. 5. The I.A. stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Order No.3 MACA No.554 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Page 2 of 4. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-company challenging the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Bargarh vide judgment dt.15.12.2023 in MAC Case No.32 of 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that vide the said judgment, the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed before it, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.15,69,120/- along with interest @7% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization with right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No.8 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that the appellant is not liable to pay the awarded amount as the driver of the offending vehicle has not having valid Driving Licence and the vehicle in question was a public carrier vehicle and the driver was holding light motor vehicle licence. 4.1. It is also contended that learned Tribunal relying on the post mortem report age of the deceased was wrongly taken at 30 years and thereby applying multiplier 17 instead of 16. It is also contended that right of recovery allowed as against Owner Respondent No.8 as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid Driving Licence be confirmed. It is also contended that owner/Respondent No.8 never choose to appear before the Tribunal nor has assailed the award, where in right of recovery was allowed. Page 3 of 4. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal appreciated the aforesaid contention, so raised by the Appellant-Company, the assessed compensation would have been calculated at a lower side than awarded vide the impugned judgment. 5. Even though Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 7 supported the impugned judgment, but in course of hearing contended that claimant-Respondent Nos.1to 7 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- along with interest @6% per annum. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Company to the aforesaid proposition so laid by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 7 leave it to the discretion of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.13,50,000/-along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realisation with right of recovery as against the owner-Respondent No.8, so allowed being confirmed. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant- Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realisation within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the Page 4 of 4. Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 7 proportionately in terms of the judgement passed on 15.12.2023 7.2. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of Rs.13,50,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is so deposited. 7.3. It is further observed that in the event of any application being filed by the Appellant-Company seeking recovery of the amount from the Respondent-Owner No.8, the Tribunal shall give due opportunity of hearing to the Respondent-Owner in that regard and decide the same in accordance with law. 7.4. It is observed that Account Payee Cheque so deposited by the appellant company and not yet invested be returned back after satisfaction of the award. The M.A.C.A accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita