High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK MACA No.42 of 2012 From judgment dated 27th September, 1997 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Jeypore in M.J.C. No.48 of 1990. ----------------- Miss Jubilamani Khosla @ Kasla, D/o. Late Kumari Khosla, Vill: Bangalaguda, P.S. Podagado, Dist: Koraput … Appellant. -Versus- Managing Director, O.S.R.T.C., At: Paribhan Bhawan, Munsif-Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda … Respondent. For Appellant : M/s. N.N. Mohapatra, R.S. Panda, P.K. Rout, A.K. Pattnaik, S. Mohapatra & M.M. Mohanty For Respondent : M/s. Braja Kishore Sahoo, K.C. Sahoo P R E S E N T: ----------
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Heard & Disposed of on 05.02.2013 B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. The present appeal has been filed at the instance of claimant-appellant challenging the order dated 27.09.1997 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Jeypore (for short, “Tribunal”) in M.J.C. No.11 of 1997 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 2 2. Case of the appellant before the Tribunal is that on 12.02.1987 at about 4.30 P.M., while the deceased, namely, Kumari Khosla was returning to her house after work, near Banalguda by crossing the road, the O.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.O.R.G.6015 came in a high speed in down gradient and hit the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and ultimately died at the spot. Soon after the incident, one Nabina Khosla lodged an F.I.R. at Koraput Sadar Police Station regarding the accident, basing on which, the matter was investigated and ultimately charge-sheet under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C. was submitted against the accused-driver Judhistir Palata in G.R. Case No.104/87 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koraput. The petitioner is the only daughter of the deceased and she was completely dependent on her income and she has just completed the age of 18 years and is unmarried. The petitioner-daughter filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation from Respondent, who is the Managing Director of O.S.R.T.C., Berhampur. 3. The respondent contested the case and also filed a written statement denying the allegation made by the petitioner in claim petition. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as three issues and after examining the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also held that the owner- respondent is vicariously liable for the act of his employee and therefore, 3 the respondent in turn is to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal determined the compensation on the basis of daily wage of the deceased as Rs.11/- and accordingly, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.275/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, the learned Tribunal fixed the contribution to the family at Rs.183/-. Thus, her annual contribution comes to Rs.2,196/- and making it a round figure which comes to Rs.2,200/-. Thereafter, applying multiplier 17 determined the amount of compensation at Rs.42,400/- taking in to consideration the age of the deceased to be 35 years and directed the respondent to pay the said amount of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 04.04.1990 till the date of realization. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmilla Pandey and others vs. Khalil Ahamad and others, 1994 A.C.J. (S.C.) 805, the Tribunal further directed that if the respondent fails to pay the above amount of compensation within a period of thirty days, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till realization. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extremely low. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken Rs.11/- as the wage of a daily labourer but it should have been Rs.30/- per day. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel placing reliance upon the notification dated 14.08.1996 published by the 4 Government of Orissa in Labour & Employment Department, wherein the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer is prescribed at Rs.30/- submits that the amount of compensation should be determined taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30/- per day. Further, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104, he submits that the wages of the deceased, who died at the age of 35 years, could have been increased/revised from time to time if she would have been alive. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the future prospectus of the deceased for the purpose of determining compensation. Mr. Mohapatra, further submits that the claimant has not yet received the amount compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Since the
Decision
matter is lingering day-by-day the same may be disposed of in the manner and spirit in which cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat to which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 6. Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is nothing wrong in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. Mr. Sahoo also produces a copy of the notification dated 21st. February, 1987 published by Government of Orissa in Labour & Employment Department and submits that in the year 1987 the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer/mulia was Rs.10/- per day. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11/- per day which is most reasonable and it warrants no interference of 5 this Court. Further, Mr. Sahoo submits that as the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is high and excessive, the same may be reduced. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal in taking daily income of the deceased at Rs.11/- per day in view of the notification dated 21st. February, 1987, particularly, when the accident took place in the year 1987. In the Notification dated 14.08.1996 published by the Government of Orissa in Labour & Employment Department relied upon by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant, it is stated that minimum wages of an unskilled labourer has been fixed at Rs.30/- per month. It is not in dispute that the wage of a labourer is increasing from time to time. In the present case, the deceased was 35 years old on the date of accident and there is every possibility of increasing her wages if she would have been alive and thus she could have earned more in future, which fact has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above and considering all the aspects of the matter and keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and others (supra) and Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 421, this Court feels that Rs.55,000/- (rupees fifty-five thousand) would be just and proper compensation which the respondent is liable to pay along with 9% interest per annum for the first 30 days of the judgment and thereafter interest at 6 the rate of 15% per annum till realization as directed by the Tribunal in its judgment. Therefore, the respondent-O.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/- before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today along with interest. On receipt of the awarded amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same to the appellant in the manner it has directed in its judgment. 9. This Court is not inclined to reduce the rate of interest as the learned Tribunal has awarded the same keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmilla Pandey (supra). 10. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ...…………………….. B.N. Mahapatra,J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5th February, 2013/SKJ