The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NOs.243 OF 2018 & 1133 OF 2018 MACA NOs.243 OF 2018 Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv. Santha Kumari & Others ..... -versus- Respondents Mr. B.N. Rath, Adv. (for Respondent No.1) MACA NO.1133 OF 2018 Santha Kumari & Others .....
Legal Reasoning
Appellants Mr. B.N. Rath Adv. Ashok Kumar Meher & Others -versus- ..... Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Adv. (for Res. No.3)
Decision
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 05.12.2024 Order No.11 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 1 3. Since both the appeals have been filed against judgment dt.02.02.2018 so passed by the District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T, Jharsuguda in MAC Case No.67 of 2013, both the appeals are heard analogously and disposed of by the common order. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.19,00,000/- along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. 4. While MACA No.243 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant-company challenging the award, MACA NO.1133 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award. 5. In support of the appeal filed by the appellant in MACA No.243 of 2018, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Company contended that without having any authentic documents being produced by the claimants showing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- 5.1. It is contended that taking into account the occupation of the deceased even if he would have been treated as a high skilled labourer, at the relevant point of time the minimum wages for such high skilled labourer was at Rs.205/- per day and accordingly his monthly income could have been taken at Rs.6,150/- per month. 5.2. It is also contended that though taking into account the evidence led by the claimants-appellants in MACA No.1133 of 2018 the Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to head on collision in between the motorcycle and offending vehicle, but while assessing the compensation, 2 contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has not been taken into consideration. 5.3. It is also contended that the FIR though was lodged on the very same day, but the name of the offending vehicle was never intimated and the offending vehicle was only seized after 9 days of the occurrence. So, it is a clear case of plantation of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. 5.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No.243 of 2018 contended that the award passed by the Tribunal requires interference of this Court. 6. In support of the enhancement of the award, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in MACA No.1133 of 2018 contended that even though evidence was laid that the deceased was earning around Rs.16000/- per month, but the Tribunal wrongly held the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. 6.1. It is contended that since no contrary evidence was laid disputing the evidence of the P.Ws, the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.16,000/- per month. It is accordingly contended that had the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the P.Ws and the income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- per month, the compensation should have been awarded at a higher side. It is also contended that necessary documents were provided and exhibited before the Tribunal showing occupation of the deceased vide Ext.8 . 7. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA NO.1133 of 2018 , learned counsel appearing for the insurer/appellant in MACA 3 No.243 of 2018 contended that Ext.8 is not a document showing income of the deceased. It is only a document issued by the Municipality indicating therein that a shop room has been allotted in favour of the deceased for the purpose of doing business of tyre retreading. It is accordingly contended that in view of the nature of document exhibited vide Ext.8, the monthly income of the deceased as contended could not have been taken at Rs.16,000/- or even at Rs.10,000/- per month 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the claim application was filed by the appellants in MACA No.1133 of 2018 because of the death of the deceased in motor accident. As found from the impugned judgement, the Tribunal held the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- even though evidence was led that he was earning around Rs.16,000/- per month. But this Court after going through the judgment finds that no document has been produced by the claimants showing the monthly income of the deceased. In absence of any such documents being produced and exhibited, it is the view of this Court that monthly income of the deceased could not have taken at Rs.10,000/- also. 8.1. Similarly, it is also found from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal though came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to head on collision in between the offending vehicle and the motor cycle so driven by the deceased , but contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident has not been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the materials placed, this 4 Court is of the view that the claimants-appellants in MACA NO.1133 of 2018, will be entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest so awarded by the Tribunal. 8.2. Therefore, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined to held the claimants- appellants in MACA NO.1133 of 2018 entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. While holding so, this Court directs the insurer-appellant in MACA No.243 of 2018 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @6% payable from the date of application till its realisation before the Tribunal within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8.3. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the Claimants-appellants in MACA 1133 of 2018 proportionately, in terms of the judgment dt.02.02.2018. 8.4. Since it is contended in the Bar that during pendency of the appeal, claimant-appellant No.2 in MACA NO.1133 of 2018 has died and all his legal heirs are on record, the share as due and admissible to the said claimant be disbursed in favour of other claimants proportionately in terms of the judgement passed on 02.02.2018. 8.5. It is further observed that if the Appellant-Company in MACA No.243 of 2018will fail to deposit the compensation amount within the time stipulated here-in-above, the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall carry interest 5 @7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is so deposited. 8.6. It is observed that only after deposit of the amount as directed, Appellant-Company in MACA NO.243 of 2018 shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification. Both the M.A.C.As are accordingly disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case. Basudev ( Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaiton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2024 14:45:05 6