The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.523 of 2018 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Balasore …. Appellant Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate -versus- Smt. Rajani Raul and others …. Respondents Mr. B. Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 Order No. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 12.10.2023 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurer in MACA No.523 of 2018 as well as Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1, 4 & 5 in MACA No.523 of 2018 as well as for the Cross Appellants in the connected Cross Appeal. Perused the award as well as the materials on records. 3. The present appeal has been filed at the instance of the Appellant-Insurer challenging judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bhadrak in M.A.C.T.-III, Bhadrak in M.A.C. No.21 of 2016 thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,30,000/- in favour of the // 2 // complainants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company assailed the award on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased as has been assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He further contended that at the time of death, the deceased was a driver in a Tipper. Therefore, it was contended that by taking into consideration the minimum wage as is applicable to skilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should have been much less than the amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been assessed by the Tribunal while calculating the quantum of compensation. He also contended that there is also a discrepancy in the age of the deceased. It is also contended that the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. However, the same has been erroneously accepted as 40 years by the Tribunal while determining the multiplier to be applicable to the claimants’ case. On the aforesaid two grounds, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the entire award is vitiated and the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1, 4 & 5 as well as Cross Appellants in the present appeal, on the other hand, contended that the age of the deceased was in fact 40 years as is evident from the record. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality. He also contended that the owner of the Tipper had appeared before the // 3 // court and deposed before the Tribunal with regard to the salary of the deceased. On the basis of the deposition of the owner of the vehicle that he was paying Rs.10,000/- monthly salary to the deceased, the Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Cross Appellants also submitted that it is well known and going rate in the market that the Tipper Drivers usually get around ten to fifteen thousand salary per month depending their workload. So far the present case is concerned, it was categorically stated by Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Cross Appellants that when the owner appeared before the Tribunal and deposed that he was paying Rs.10,000/- of salary, such deposition of the owner of the vehicle remain unassailed despite the owner was put the cross-examination, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality at all in accepting Rs.10,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 6. So far the Cross Appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the Cross Appellants submitted that the income of the deceased to be more. He further submitted that it is too well known that the Tipper Drivers usually get more salary then the normal driver, who usually drive light commercial vehicles. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at a higher scale. 7. However, on a careful analysis of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is not inclined to accept such submission in view of the fact that owner of the // 4 // vehicle himself appeared before the Court and stated that the deceased driver was getting Rs.10,000/- as monthly salary. Therefore, the Cross Appeal filed by the Claimants-Cross Appellants is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 8. So far the Insurer Appeal is concerned, this Court by taking into consideration that there is dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as to whether he is aged about 40 or 45 years, this Court deems it proper that instead of 14 multiplier, the Tribunal should have applied 13 multiplier to arrive at a fair compensation amount. Accordingly, by applying the 13 multiplier, the compensation amount would come to Rs.14,62,500/-. Further, adding to the aforesaid compensation amount, a consolidated sum of Rs.70,000/- towards general damages, the total amount comes to Rs.15,32,500/-. 9. On a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the Tribunal, this Court found no illegality, so far the findings are concerned. The same are based on evidence on record. However, while fixing the compensation amount, the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier. By rectifying the same, this Court would like to dispose of the appeal by modifying the quantum of compensation to the extent that instead of Rs.16,30,000/- the compensation amount should be Rs.15,32,500/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs.15,32,500/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs thirty two thousand five hundred) along with interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim // 5 // application till the date the actual payment is made. 10. It is further clarified that on production of evidence with regard to the payments of compensation amount to the claimants before the Tribunal, the Registry of this Court shall do well to release the statutory deposit along with interest in favour of the Appellant-Insurer. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2023 17:35:59