Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1180 of 2024 Manager (T.P. Hub), M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., BBSR ..... Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv. -versus- Puspanjali Bag & Others ..... Respondents Mr. D. Patnaik, Adv. (for Respondent Nos.1 to 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.02.2025 Order No. 4 I.A NO.2462 of 20254. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 17.02.2025. 4. The I.A accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 2 of 4. MACA No.1067 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-company challenging the compensation awarded by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge-cum-5th MACT, Balasore vide judgment dt.19.10.2023 in MAC No.299 of 2019. 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.9,04,770/- along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. 3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that though the I.O submitted charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle but during the cross-examination , P.W.1 admitted that an unknown vehicle dashed his mother resulting to death. It is also contended that P.W 2 has confirmed during cross examination that he had not disclosed about the bullet motor cycle. 3.2. It is also contended that the rider of the Bullet motorcycle is not competent to drive two-wheeler as he has no Driving Licence to drive MCWG and the appellant- company is not liable to indemnify insured. It is also contended that the right of recovery be allowed as against Owner Respondent No.4 3.3. It is contended that had the Tribunal appreciated the aforesaid contention, so raised by the Appellant-Company, Page 3 of 4. the assessed compensation and the rate of interest would have been calculated at a lower side than awarded vide the impugned judgment. 4. Even though Mr. P.K. Mishra , learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondents No.1,2 & 3 supported the impugned judgment, but in course of hearing contended that claimants-Respondents will be fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,25,000/- with interest @6% per annum. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company to the aforesaid proposition so laid by the learned counsel for the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 leave it to the discretion of this Court. 6. 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.8,25,000/- along with interest @6% per annum. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.8,25,000/- 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 and allows right of recovery as against Respondent No.4. 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 Claimants-Respondents No.1,2 & 3 proportionately in terms of the judgement passed on 19.10.2023. Page 4 of 4. 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.8,25,000/- 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 only after deposit of the amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification. The M.A.C.A is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita