Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.553 of 2024 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate -versus- Kandari Bhoi & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) Mr. B.N. Rath, Advocate (Respondent No. 4) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 10.04.2025 Order No.09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, learned counsel and associates entered their appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by filing Vakalatnama in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Office is directed to indicate the name of Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel and associates in the case record. 4. Heard Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Company, Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.18.12.2023 so passed by the 2nd MACT, Northern Division, Samabalpur in MAC Case No. 64 of 2022. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Page 2 of 3. Rs.15,15,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that since the deceased was a bachelor and Claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased, 60% of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenses. But the Tribunal committed wrong by deducting 2/3rd of the income, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that without having any sufficient proof, income of the deceased was taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal properly calculated the monthly income of the deceased, the compensation amount so awarded would have been assessed on the lower side. 7. Even though Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended that Claimants-Respondents will have no grievance, if the compensation amount will be reduced to Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 8. Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.18.12.2023, held the Claimants- Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing Page 3 of 3. of the claim application till its realization. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization 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 proportionately in favour of the Claimants- Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in terms of the Judgment passed on 18.12.2023. 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.12,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 9.2. 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. 10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha