The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1265 of 2014 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Manoj Manjari Sarang and others …. Respondents -versus- Appeared in this case:- For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. N.K. Mishra, Advocate Mr. A.K. Ray, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J.R. Dash, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 17.09.2024 / date of judgment :20.09.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act, 1988’) by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging an award passed by the learned 4th MACT, Puri in MAC Case No.18/24 of 2009/2006 in favour of the petitioners thereof has been taken up for its final disposal at the stage of admission after hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides. // 2 // 2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) concentrated to a limited ground in his argument contending that, learned 4th MACT, Puri has awarded excess amount in favour of the claimants(petitioners) in MAC No.18/24 of 2009/2006, then, their legally entitled amount as their just compensation, because, the learned Tribunal has taken the yearly salary of the deceased for calculation of compensation without deducting his statutory deductions, i.e., income tax and professional tax from the same. For which, according to him (learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.2), the petitioners in MAC Case No.18/24 of 2009/2006 should have been awarded less amount than the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal as their just compensation, to which, the leaned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 (petitioners in MAC Case No.18/24 of 2009/2006) vehemently objected submitting the certified copies of Ext.9(salary certificate of the deceased) and Ext.11 (pay particulars of the deceased) contending that, award has been passed by the learned Tribunal properly after deducting the income tax and professional tax from the salary of the deceased, for which, there is nothing to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 3. It appears from the judgment/award passed in MAC Case No.18/24 of 2009/2006 that, accident of the deceased had occurred on dated 11.01.2006. In issue No.4, the learned Tribunal has held on the basis of Exts.9 and 11 that, the deceased was serving in Reserve Bank of India by the time of his motor vehicular accidental death. His service was left for seven years for his superannuation and his gross salary in the month of December, 2005(which is the preceding month of the accident) was Rs.33,796/-(rupees thirty-three thousand seven hundred ninety-six). For which, by taking the income of the deceased from his salary along with his future prospects in his service into account and applying multiplier as 11, the learned Tribunal has held that, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.39,60,000/-(rupees thirty-nine lakhs sixty thousand) as compensation on the ground of loss of their dependency and Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) towards funeral expenses and as such, they(petitioners) are entitled for Rs.39,80,000/-(thirty-nine lakhs eighty thousand) in total as their just compensation for the motor vehicular accidental death of the deceased being the legal representatives of the deceased. 4. When, it is forthcoming from the documents vide Exts.9 and 11 that, by the time of the accidental death of the deceased, his monthly Page 3 of 6 // 4 // salary was Rs.33,796/- and he(deceased) was paying annual income tax i.e. Rs.31,710/- and professional tax for nine months i.e. Rs.1800/-, for which, as per law, the calculation of the just compensation of the petitioners for the loss of their dependency is required to be calculated after deducting the statutory deductions i.e. yearly income tax and yearly professional tax from his salary, but, the learned Tribunal has not done so. For which, there is justification under law for making some interference with the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal through this appeal preferred by the appellant, Insurance Company. 5. Therefore, the just compensation of the petitioners in MAC No.18/24 of 2009/2006 is calculated as follows:- Monthly gross salary of the deceased Rs.33,796/- + Rs.5,069/- {addition of 15% towards future prospective, as the deceased was in permanent job in Reserve Bank of India and his seven years of service was left for his superannuation, in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 (4) SCC-689 (Paras-10 and 12) : K.R. Madhusudan vrs. Administrative Officer and another, which is prior to Pranay Sethi's case} = Rs.38,865/- X 12=Rs.4,66,380/-(yearly income) – Rs.34,210/-(less statutory deductions, i.e., Rs.31,710/- yearly income tax + Rs.2500/- yearly Professional Tax)=Rs.4,32,170/- – Rs.1,08,042.50 Paise (less 1/4th, as the number of dependants of the deceased are Page 4 of 6 // 5 // four)=Rs.3,24,127.50 Paise X 11 (multiplier as per the Sarala Verma’s case, as the deceased was within the age group of 53 to 55)= Rs.35,65,402.50 Paise (entitlement of the petitioners only under the head of loss of their dependency + Rs.10,000/-(award towards loss of consortium)=Rs.35,75,402.50 Paise + Rs.10,000/-(award towards funeral expenditures)=Rs.35,85,402.50 Paise. Therefore, the petitioners in MAC No.18/24 of 2009/2006 (Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this appeal) are entitled for Rs.35,85,402.50 Paise as their just compensation along with accrued interest thereon at the rate as awarded by the learned Tribunal since the date of filing of their claim petition. 6. When, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.39,80,000/- in favour of the petitioners, but, as per the calculations made above, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.35,85,402.50 Paise as their just compensation, which is less than the awarded amount passed by learned Tribunal, then, at this juncture, there is justification under law for making some interference with the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned 4th MACT, Puri In MAC No.18/24 of 2009/2006 through this appeal filed by the appellant(Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company). For which, the appeal filed by the appellant(Insurance Company) is allowed in part on contest. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. As such, with the modification of the awarded amount as stated
Decision
above, the appeal is disposed of finally. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 20th of September, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 20:57:11 Page 6 of 6