IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1011 of 2024 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack …. Appellant Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Bhabani Shankar Bagh and Another …. Respondents Mr. P.C. Chhinchani , Adv. (Respondent No.1) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 09.05.2025 I.A. NO.2195 of 2024 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Perused the tracking report. 3. Since notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2, notice against the said Respondent is treated as sufficient. 4.Heard. 5. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 15.05.2025. 6. The I.A stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge MACA No.1011 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant–Company challenging the judgment dt.08.01.2024 so passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T, Rourkela in MAC Case No.32 of 2018. Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.25,17,280/- along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though the claimant described himself as a Marble Mistry, but tribunal without any documentary evidence in that regard, wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12000/- per month. It is contended that in absence of any proof regarding the status and income, minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker should have been taken as the income of the injured. It is further contended that Tribunal without any documentary evidence wrongly held the age of the injured at 24 years and applied multiplier 18, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. It is further contended that considering the disability of the claimant at 45% permanent locomotor disability, the Tribunal committed wrong in holding the functional disability of the claimant-respondent at 60% which is on the higher side. 3.2. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company contended that the award amount so passed by the Tribunal needs interference of this Court. 4. Even though learned counsel for the claimants- respondents supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing contended that the claimant-respondent will be fully satisfied if this Court will reduce the compensation amount to Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 5. 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. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court is inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.21,00,000/-along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.21,00,000/- 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. 6.1. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the claimant-respondent in terms of the judgment dt.08.01.2024. 6.2. 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.21,00,000/- shall carry interest @7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is so deposited. 6.3. 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 MACA accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge subrat