Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.16 of 2019 Druputa@ Josoda Bhatra & Others ..... Appellants Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate -versus- Mahabir Pr. Agrawal & Another ..... Respondents Mr. Sumanta Sahoo, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr.M.K. Mohapatra, Adv. for Resp. No.1 Mr. M.C. Nayak, Adv. for Resp. No.2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.02.2025 Order No. 09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the award so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- 3rd M.A.C.T., Nabarangpur in MAC No.44/2017 (T) vide his judgment dtd.03.12.2018. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal allowed the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,94,000/- along with interest payable @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. 4. In support of the enhancement of the award, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the Tribunal wrongly held the daily income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day though at the relevant point of time the minimum wages of such daily wager was Rs.207.20p. Page 2 of 3. 4.1. It is also contended that while awarding such compensation, no award was made towards future prospect and award made towards other conventional head was also on the lower side. 4.2. It is contended that had the Tribunal allowed the compensation by taking the daily income at Rs.207.20P with award towards future prospect and other conventional head in its proper perspective, the appellants-claimants would have been entitled to get higher compensation to the tune of Rs.12,08,920/- with interest. 5. However, in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants will be fully satisfied, if this Court will allow compensation to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest payable @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. 5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Company to the aforesaid proposition so laid by the learned counsel for the claimants-Respondents for reducing the compensation to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest @ 60% p.a., leave it to the discretion of this Court. It is also contended that the award has not yet been satisfied. 6. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Owner-Respondent No.1 on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the cross objection contended that the owner –respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the Tribunal has wrongly allowed right of recovery in favour of the Respondent No.2-Company. It is accordingly contended that right of recovery so allowed be set aside. Page 3 of 3. 6.1. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment held the appellants –claimants entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.11,50,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum payable from the date of application till its realisation. This Court directs the Respondent No.2-Company to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 6.2. However, it is observed that if the compensation 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.11,50,000- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum payable for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 6.3. It is also observed that in the event any such application is moved for recovery of the amount from the Owner-Respondent, the Tribunal shall deal with the same in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Owner-Respondent No.1. 6.4. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge