(In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor v. Smt. Namita Barik

Judgment

13.03.2026 V. Narasingh, J. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated

22.02.2017 passed by the learned IIIrd MACT, Balasore, in M.A.C. Case No.51 of 2013, awarding compensation of Rs.8,53,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 11.02.2013, till the date of payment on account of the death of one Panchanan Barik, the husband of Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and

learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. The LRs of the deceased- Panchanan Barik, by filing the application under Sections 163(A) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act), claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of Panchanan Barik in the vehicular accident. To substantiate their claim, it was inter alia stated in the claim petition that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 35 years old and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing carpentry and Rs.1,000/- from his own agricultural land.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on

25.12.2012, while one Panchanan Barik (since deceased), along with others, was waiting to board a bus at Gohira Simulia around 5.30 P.M., a motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-01-S-1679 coming at high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against three persons along with the deceased causing severe bleeding injuries on Panchanan Barik’s head and chest. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital. While he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries. As such, a claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, as noted above.

4. The owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and the Insurer-Appellant (M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) as Opposite Party No.2. The owner did not contest and was set ex parte vide order dated 08.07.2013.

5. The Insurance Company-Appellant (Opposite Party No.2), contested the case and filed its written statement resisting the claim. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed; “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount?

2. Whether the owner or the insurance company is liable to pay compensation?

3. To what relief, the petitioners are entitled for?”

6. In order to substantiate their stand, the widow Respondent No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one occurrence witness was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the Claimants and several documents were also exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 12. The Appellant-Insurance Company examined one witness as O.P.W.1 and exhibited documents marked as Exts.A to E.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. A.A. Khan submits that since the application was filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act, even assuming that the Appellant-Insurance Company is held to be liable to pay compensation, the annual income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.40,000/- as per the Second Schedule and as such the Tribunal committed an error in treating the income of the deceased as Rs.72,000/-.

8. It is further urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, in the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident on 25.12.2012, i.e., Rs.150/- per day, ought to have been taken as the income and there being no basis for the learned Tribunal to assess the income at Rs.6,000/-, the consequential quantification is liable to be set aside and in this context he relies on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Laxmi Devi vs. Baldev Singh, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1699.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-claimants, Mr. B. Singh submits that it is too late in the day to take objection regarding the assessment compensation treating the emoluments as Rs.40,000/- in terms of the Second Schedule, inasmuch as it is abundantly clear from the judgment that both sides proceeded on the premises that this is also an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and that it is apt to note that admittedly the application was styled as one under “Sections 163(A) and 166 of the M.V. Act”.

10. So far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the Claimants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others, 2021 (4) T.A.C. 346 (S.C.); (2022) 1 SCC 198 and held that there is no thumb rule that in the absence of any documentary evidence being produced, minimum wages have to be taken for arriving at the income of the deceased.

11. In the given facts of the present case, the wife of the deceased claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Such income of Rs.7,000/- per month remained unchallenged in cross-examination. The relevant extract of the examination in chief filed by way of affidavit as well as the cross- examination in this regard is culled out hereunder for convenience of reference; “xxx xxx xxx 4. My husband was a strang and healthy man of 35 years he was managed our family by doing carpentary with cultivation and earned per month 7,000/- and more. I alongwith my family members were living very happily and all the petitioners were fully depending on the income of my husband. I am completely house wife and petitioner 2,3 are school going children. xxx xxx xxx” ‘X’ examination- “xxx xxx xxx It is not the fact that my husband met the 16. accident while proceeding in the motor cycle, due to negligence of the driver. It is not a fact that my husband was never doing any wood work. It is not a fact that in connivance with police and owner of the motor cycle a false FIR is lodged. xxx xxx xxx”

12. Hence, considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the earning of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month.

13. In this context, this Court respectfully refers to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra (supra) that “in absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality.”

14. On consideration of the materials and evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the subjective assessment of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and consequential quantification of compensation on such basis cannot be said to be irrational so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. In view of the discussion as above, considering the materials on record, on the touchstone of the doctrine of “just compensation”, Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.8,53,000/-, as awarded.

15. So far as interest is concerned, this Court is persuaded to hold that in the factual backdrop of the case at hand, quantifying interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.,

11.02.2013, till actual payment, would subserve the ends of justice. The interest component in terms of the impugned award accordingly stands modified.

16. The amount awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% as above shall be deposited within a period of six weeks hence. The amount, if any, already paid in terms of impugned award shall be deducted. Within a period two weeks of such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the impugned award as modified.

17. Within four weeks of submitting evidence regarding the compliance relating to deposit of the compensation, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company, as per procedure.

18. Accordingly, the MACA is disposed of. Costs made easy. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 13th of March, 2026/Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:55:37