The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA Nos.223 of 2022 & 420 of 2023 Ramesh Chandra Sahu …. Appellant Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate -versus- Gopal singh Bhaira and Another …. Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 04.10.2024 10. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Since both the appeals have been filed challenging judgment dated 28.02.2022, so passed by learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Dhenkanal in MAC Case No.163 of 2018, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. While MACA No.223 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded vide the impugned judgment, // 2 // MACA No.420 of 2023 has been filed by the Insurer challenging the compensation awarded vide the impugned judgment. 5. In support of the enhancement of the award, learned counsel for the claimant in MACA No.223 of 2022 contended that taking into account the disability of the injured at 75% permanent and his left leg having been amputed, the Tribunal should have taken the loss of earning capacity at 100% instead of taking the same at 75%. 5.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation, no compensation has been awarded towards future prospect. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award needs enhancement with due interference of this Court.
Legal Reasoning
6. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer in MACA No.420 of 2023 on the other hand contended that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation at Rs.54,00,650/- wrongly take the salary of the injured at Rs.24,224/- instead of taking the average salary so drawn by the injured during the proceeding 12 months. 6.1. It is also contended that taking into account the salary so drawn by the injured during the proceeding 12 Page 2 of 6 // 3 // months, the average salary being Rs.18,073/-, it should have been taken as the monthly wage of the injured. It is also contended that while taking the income of the injured, no amount was deducted towards income tax. It is also contended that since the injured was insured by the employer up to Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal never take that thing into consideration while assessing the compensation. 6.2. It is also contended that award of interest @ 7% is on the higher side. However, it is fairly contended that no compensation has been awarded towards future prospect taking into account the age of the injured, the same should have been calculated at 40%. 6.3. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the average salary of the injured at Rs.18,073/- per month and by allowing 40% towards future prospect as well as loss of earning capacity at 100%, the injured- claimant will be entitled at best to get compensation of Rs.68,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum instead of 7%, so awarded by the Tribunal. 7. To the submission made by learned counsel for the Insurer, learned counsel for the Claimant contended that taking into account the age of the injured, future prospect should be taken at 50% instead of 40% and the injured-claimant taking his monthly salary at Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Rs.18,073/- will be entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.72,00,000/- along with interest so awarded. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while disposing the claim application, the Tribunal take the income of the injured at Rs.24,224/- i.e. the salary drawn by the injured in the month of May, 2018. Since it is not disputed that the monthly salary of the injured varies from month to month, this Court is of the view that taking into account the salary drawn by the injured during the proceeding 12 months as reflected in Para-4 of the appeal memo of the insurer, which is not disputed, the average salary will be Rs.18,073/-. It is the view of this Court that the tribunal should have taken Rs.18,073/- as the monthly income of the injured in place of Rs.24,224/-. 8.1. It is found that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation has not awarded any compensation towards future prospect. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the age of the injured, it is the view of this Court that future prospect should be calculated at 40% instead of 50% as claimed by the injured. It is also found that while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the interest @ 7% per annum, which as per the Page 4 of 6 // 5 // considered view is on the higher side taking into account prevailing rate of interest. 8.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met if the injured- claimant will be allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. While holding so, this Court held the injured-claimant entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.68,00,000/- with interest @ 6 % payable from the date of application till its realization. Accordingly, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment, directs the Insurer to pay compensation amount of Rs.68,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% payable from the date of application till its realization. 8.3. This Court accordingly direct the appellant in MACA No.420 of 2023 to deposit the amount as directed herein above within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, if the amount as directed will not be deposited within the aforesaid time period, the compensation amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of expiry of the period of 8(eight) weeks till it is deposited. 8.4. It is further observed that only after deposit of the entire amount as directed, Appellant-Company in MACA Page 5 of 6 // 6 // No. 420 of 2023 shall be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, from the Registry on proper identification.
Decision
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Oct-2024 16:53:57 Page 6 of 6