The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 16. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No. 74of 2016 Reliance G.I.C. Co. Ltd. …. Appellant Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate -versus- Manju Barik and others …. Respondents Mr.B.Sahoo, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 22.11.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual MACA Nos. 74 & 75 of 2016 /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurer-Appellant Company challenging the common/joint award dated 31.08.2015 passed in MAC Case No.50 of 2011 and MAC Case No.51 of 2011 by the learned M.A.C.T.(ND), Sambalpur.. 4. Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, at the outset, submitted that the present appeal is confined to fixation of quantum basing upon the income of the deceased. Accordingly, it was submitted that the quantum of compensation that has been fixed by the learned Tribunal is not the proper // 2 // compensation as the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side considering the erroneous amount of income from agricultural properties of the deceased which has been accepted by the learned MAC Tribunal while calculating he compensation amount. 5. The factual backdrop of the case, in short, is that the deceased persons while proceeding towards Sambalpur on N.H.42 by a motorcycle driven by deceased Nabin and while they were near village Jamtal School chowk, the truck bearing Registration No.CG- 04-DB-7791 coming from Sambalpur side at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the motorcycle of the deceased persons. As a result of such accident, the deceased persons sustained injury and eventually succumbed to such injuries at the spot. On the basis of information lodged before the Jujomura P.S., a Police case was registered. Accordingly, the dead body was sent for P.M. examination. Upon registration of an F.I.R. Police carried out investigation and filed Charge Sheet against the driver of the offending truck in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. 6. So far deceased Ranjan is concerned, he was aged about 32 years and was a cultivator and also working as Site in chare under a private Explosives company at Ghodolomuda godown. The other deceased, namely Nabin was aged about 45 years and was also a cultivator and owner of a tractor besides he was an employee of the aforesaid private Explosive Company. In the Claim application, the Claimants have assessed and claimed that the monthly income of the aforesaid two deceased persons were Rs.8000/- and Rs.9000/- respectively. Learned Tribunal after taking evidence has come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased Ranjan was Rs.4000/- per month. Accordingly after deducting 1/3rd of his income and by // 3 // applying 16 multiplier, a total compensation was assessed at Rs.8,90,000/- which includes cost of conveyance and funeral, consortium and cost of pain and suffering and towards loss of estate. 7. Similarly the monthly income of other deceased Navin was assessed at Rs.6000/- deducting his income from his tractor business in addition to the income from agricultural sources and from wages he was getting from the private company. Thereafter the Tribunal by applying the 14 multiplier had awarded Rs.8,78,500/- which includes cost of conveyance and funeral, consortium towards pain and suffering and loss to estate. 8. Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that while assessing the monthly income of the deceased persons, learned Tribunal has assessed the same hypothetically as there was no clear and specific evidence with regard to exact monthly income of the deceased persons. He further contended that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal in the impugned award was on a higher side. Therefore, the final award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is erroneous as the monthly income of the deceased persons is based on imaginary and hypothetical consideration. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the award by submitting before this Court that the learned trial court after discussing the evidence adduced during trial has come to a just and fair decision as to the income of the deceased persons. He further contended that the amount of monthly income which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal was the bare requirement of a person who maintains himself and his family. It was also contended that the income of the deceased persons would be more by taking into consideration cost of living index if there is no evidence in that regard. The learned Tribunal has confined the // 4 // amount which has been assessed on the basis of presumptive calculation of monthly income. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and further on scrutiny of the evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that no doubt the Tribunal has arrived at a monthly income on presumption. However, there is no clear evidence with regard to the exact monthly income of the deceased persons. This Court also conscious of the fact that award of compensation has to be based on exact monthly income. 10. From the evidence of most of the witnesses this Court is required to assess the same hypothetically taking into consideration the evidence in that regard. In the present case, the assessment of monthly income, according to this Court, appears to be on the higher side. There was no evidence adduced before this Court with regard to agricultural income of the deceased persons. In such view of the matter this Court by adopting a rational approach deems it proper that the agricultural income of the deceased persons cannot be more than Rs.2000/- per month so far both deceased persons are concerned. Accordingly the monthly income should have been calculated by taking into consideration agricultural income as has been indicated herein above. However, considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2016 and the appeal has been preferred in 2010, this Court considering the whole thing deems it proper to dispose of the matter with the consent of both sides. 11. Accordingly, on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant that he is ready and willing to accept the total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for each of the deceased in each of the appeals in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned // 5 // counsel for the Appellant left it to the discretion of this Court. In such factual background this Court taking note of the decision in Taslim Parvin’s case reported in 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application i.e. 15.03.2011 till the actual amount is paid shall be just and fair in the factual background of the present case. Accordingly, the appeals are being disposed of with the aforesaid terms and with a further direction to the appellant- Insurance Company to give the entire awarded amount within a period of two months from today. 12. Further, the appellant-Insurance Company is given the right of recovery of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle if so advised. With regard to apportionment of the awarded amount, learned Tribunal shall work out the same on payment of the awarded amount along with interest. The statutory deposit be refunded to the appellant-Insurance company with accrued interest therein in both the appeals by the Registry of thi Court on proper application. With the aforesaid observation the MACAs stand disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Nov-2023 12:17:02