IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1014 OF 2023 D.M., Cholamandalam, M.S. G.I. Co. Ltd. Appellant Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate -versus- Kamala Das & Others …. Respondents Mr. K.C. Nayak, Advocate (Respondent Nos.1 & 2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 04.03.2025 04. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant–Company challenging Judgment dtd.05.08.2023 so passed by the learned 1st MACT, Kendrapara in MAC Case No.59 of 2020. Vide the said Judgment, the Tribunal allowed the compensation at Rs.24,00,000/- 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 the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the alleged offending truck was not involved in the accident in question as the alleged truck was seized after more than 9 months of the accident. It is also contended that the Claimants-Respondents p. 2 p. 2 did not produce any evidence showing the amount spent towards treatment of the deceased. But the Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.8,57,228/- towards cost of treatment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that instead of multiplier 5, the Tribunal wrongly adopted multiplier 7, which is also not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.1. Making the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Appellant-Company contended that the impugned judgment needs interference of this Court as the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Appellant, allowed the application vide the impugned judgment. 5. Even though Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel for Claimants- Respondents Nos.1 & 2 supported the impugned award, but in course of hearing, contended that the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 will be fully satisfied, if this Court will reduce the compensation amount to Rs.18,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 6. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- company left the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to the discretion of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned award held the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.18,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the application till its realization. While holding so, this Court directs the Appellant- p. 3 p. 3 Company to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest 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 in favour of the Claimants-Respondents proportionately in terms of the Judgment passed on 05.08.2023. 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.18,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 7.2. It is further observed that since the statutory deposit has not been invested, the cheque be returned back to the learned counsel for the Appellant after satisfaction of the award. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha