The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.274 of 2023 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Infinity Park, Dindashi Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra …. Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate -Versus- Satyajit Sahu & another Respondents …. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 18.03.2024 Order No. 09. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No.1. 2. None appears for respondent No.2, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Instant appeal is at the behest of the appellant Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation directed by the learned 2nd MACT, Cuttack while disposing of Misc. Case No.278 of 2013 on the grounds stated therein. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the claimant respondent No.1 is not completely disabled as he was able to renew the driving license once in 2017 and again in 2023 and while claiming so, he produced the relevant papers obtained online. Furthermore, it is submitted that the income of the claimant respondent No.1 increased and hence, he had no loss in earning. It is contended by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the alleged accident took place in 2011 and the claimant respondent Page 1 of 4 No.1 remained in service till 2014 and thereafter, left it and nevertheless, the income increased and hence, it cannot be said that he had any loss of earning capacity. While advancing such an argument, Mr. Dutta cited a decision of Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Satish Chandra Sharma & another 2022 (2) TAC 6 (SC) to satisfy the Court that the learned Tribunal could not have allowed any such amount on the head of loss of earning as claimant respondent No.1 was not immobilized and was able to earn handsomely. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Income Tax deductions for the assessment year 2020-21 over the gross income of Rs.3,75,600/- was not excluded. With the above submission, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, has to be reduced accordingly. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the claimant had to leave the job on account of the injury received and 75% disability which he suffered, which is certified by the Medical Board. In a reply and response to the loss of earning of claimant respondent No.1, notwithstanding the increase in salary, Mr. Mishra, would further submit that there may be 25% deduction relying upon a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Hiranya Guru and another reported in 2021 (2) T.A.C. 421 (Ori.) and a judgment of the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh Vrs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (2) T.A.C. 737 (S.C). The contention is that the loss of future earning is to be taken in account despite any such increase in income of the claimant. 6. The facts, which are not in dispute are that the claimant respondent No.1 was working as Assistant Professor in an Engineering Collage and the alleged accident took place in 2011 and nearly after three years, he left the job, which is claimed to be due to the alleged injury and disability suffered by him. Of course, Page 2 of 4 referring to the information regarding the driving license issued in favour of the claimant respondent No.1, as it has been brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Dutta during and in course of the hearing, which is with respect to renewal of such license, the Court is of the considered view that accepting the same, the loss of earning cannot be denied. Furthermore, the claimant respondent No.1 sustained 75% permanent disability. On a reading of the decision in Dinesh Singh (supra), it is made to understand that even in case of such disability suffered (as in the said case, the injured was in Engineering profession), it has been held that such loss of earning cannot be denied on the ground that he took up employment thereafter. In the decision of Hiranya Guru (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider the loss of earning of the injured and considering 50% disability certified by the Medical Board reduced the compensation by 20%. 7. In Satish Chandra Sharma (supra), the Apex Court noticed that the injured continued with the monthly salary drawing all other emoluments and at the time of the accident, he was 56 years old and had about four years of service left, in under all such circumstances, was of the view that since it was not a case of entire body with the functional disability, compensation amount needed to be reduced. In the present set of facts, at the time of the accident the claimant respondent No.1 was aged about 46 years and he suffered 75% of disability besides the injuries and incontinence of urine. 8. Having regard to the nature of disability, the Court is of the considered view that the claimant respondent No.1 must have had the difficulty to perform daily chores and manage the profession as he was as an Assistant Professor in an Engineering College, hence, as it appears, had to leave the job in 2014. Notwithstanding the increase in salary, which according to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for claimant respondent No.1 was on account of private institution, Page 3 of 4 the Court is of the considered view that loss of his future earning cannot be entirely ignored, hence, it would be just and proper to deduct 25% from the sum assessed, however, with an additional sum of Rs.1.10 lac towards pain and suffering and medical expenses, as such, with the compensation being arrived at Rs.42,50,000/- approximately (with income tax deduction for the Assessment Year 2012-13 included), which should be made payable to him along with 6% interest per annum. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that the compensation, which is directed by the learned Tribunal, is required to be reduced accordingly. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the interest, which has been applied 7% per annum, should be 6% from the date of claim application filed. 9. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned awarded 27th October, 2022 passed in Misc. Case No.278 of 2013 by the learned 2nd MACT, Cuttack is hereby modified with the direction to the appellant insurance company to deposit Rs.42,50,000/-payable along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application filed, which shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant respondent No.1. The Court further directs that the statutory deposit along with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company soon after the deposit of the compensation amount and its disbursement in favour of the claimant respondent No.1. 11. Urgent certified copy of the order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Mar-2024 10:48:45 Page 4 of 4