Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.736 of 2022 Divl. Manager, Division XV, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate -versus- Kawita Agrawal @ Agarwal & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. M. Agarwal, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5) Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Respondent No. 7) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 04.03.2025 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company, Mr. M. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents and Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 7. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company challenging Judgment dtd.05.09.2022 so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-4th MACT, Sambalpur in MAC Case No. 139/11/1 of 2010-11-19. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.1,09,74,084/- along with interest @ 6% 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 while assailing the compensation so awarded contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the Page 2 of 3. deceased basing on the ITR filed subsequent to the death of the deceased vide Ext. 10. It is contended that since no other document nor previous ITRs of the deceased was filed by the Claimants basing on the ITR filed for the Assessment year 2010-11, that too after the death of the deceased, the said income should not have been taken as the annual income of the deceased. It is also contended that since the Petitioner in terms of the deed of partnership was entitled to get certain remuneration, the income shown in the ITR vide Ext. 10 is admittedly inflated, in order to get higher compensation. It is also contended that taking into account the age of the deceased multiplier 15 in place of multiplier 16 should have been applied. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award needs interference of this Court. 4.1. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company contended that had the Tribunal properly appreciated the aforesaid contention so raised by the Appellant, the compensation amount so awarded should have been assessed on the lower side. 5. Even though Mr. M. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents 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.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 6. Mr. Satpathy, 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. Page 3 of 3. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned Judgment dtd.05.09.2022, 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. This Court accordingly while holding so, directs the Appellant-Company to deposit 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- Respondents in terms of the Judgment passed on 05.09.2022. 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 starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 7.2. Invalidated cheque be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant after satisfaction of the award in terms of the present order on proper identification. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha