Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.796 of 2023 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate -versus- Brundabati Behera & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 10.04.2025 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None has entered appearance in spite of due service of notice on Respondent No. 3 and order passed by this Court on 28.03.2024. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.18.04.2023 so passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-MACT (IV), Balangir in MAC Case No. 36/29 of 2017-22. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.55,85,800/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that while calculating the income of the deceased, necessary deduction towards income tax and Page 2 of 4. professional tax was not made and accordingly the compensation was assessed at a higher side. 4.1. It is also contended that taking into account the fact that the deceased was in the fag end of his career, split multiplier should have been applied. But the Tribunal taking into account the age of the deceased, applied the multiplier as prescribed. Not only that the Appellant though took a specific stand that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and in spite of appearance of the Owner-Respondent No. 3 never produced the permit covering the period of accident, right of recovery as against the Owner- Respondent No. 3 was not allowed. 4.2. Since from the impugned judgment it is found that a specific stand was taken by the Appellant that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and in spite of notice, the Owner-Respondent No. 3 has not appeared, this Court is inclined to allow right of recovery as against the Owner-Respondent No. 3. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal deducted the income tax and professional tax, the compensation amount so awarded would have been assessed on the lower side and right of recovery should have been allowed as against Owner/Respondent No. 3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment needs interference of this Court. 5. Even though Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 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 Page 3 of 4. Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 6. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Company while left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court, contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-Respondent No. 3, because of non-production of valid permit either by the Owner or by the I.O. in his charge sheet. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.18.04.2023, held the Claimants- Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and allow right of recovery as against Owner-Respondent No. 3. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- 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. 1 & 2 in terms of the Judgment passed on 18.04.2023. 7.1. 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.50,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period Page 4 of 4. starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 7.2. It is however observed that if any such application is moved by the Appellant to recover the amount from the Owner-Respondent No. 3, the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the application in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3. 7.3. 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. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha