JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.708 of 2018 In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 1. Nandini Samal 2. Aparajita Samal 3. Amit Kumar Samal Appellants …. -versus- 1.The Principal Saint Mary’s School 2.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate (R-2) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 01.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants- Claimants and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 2. The Appellants–Claimants assailing the judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Rourkela in MAC Case No.187 of 2015 awarding a compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- to the Page 1 of 8 Claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 26.06.2015 have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount and with a prayer to saddle the liability on Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground that the basis on which Respondent No.1-owner was found to be liable is ex facie illegal in view of the R.C. Book on record vide Ext.A in the light of the definition of Light Motor Vehicles in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The Appellants as Claimants filed the aforesaid M.A.C Case claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Bata Krushna Samal who was working as a senior technician in SAIL, RSP, Rourkela and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The deceased while going to his duty by bicycle the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-14N-8040 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. In such claim application, the owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Page 2 of 8 Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition. 4.
Legal Reasoning
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed; “i. Whether Batakrushna Samal died in a vehicular accident which took place near Naya Bazar chowk, Rourkela on 27.7.10 at about 5.30 AM due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation and if so, what would be the just compensation? (iii) Whether O.P. No. 1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners?” In order to substantiate their stand, Petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 13. Insurance Company has examined one witness as OPW.1 and documents were marked as Exts.A to C. Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.29,76,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. Page 3 of 8 5.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants, Mr. Panigrahi that learned Tribunal has ex facie proceeded on the wrong premises that the vehicle in question is a heavy motor vehicle and the driver had no valid driving licence to drive such vehicle as such absolved the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. It is his further submission that the compensation amount is also liable to be enhanced. 6. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, opposed such submission on both the counts. 7. On a perusal of the photocopy of the R.C. book of the offending vehicle, vide Ext.A it is seen that unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 2585 Kg. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 deals with “light motor vehicle”. For convenience Section 2(21) is extracted hereunder: “2. Definitions.- (11) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms; (Emphasized) 1 Sec.2(21) of the M.V Act, 1988 Page 4 of 8 On the date of accident i.e. on 27.07.2010 the accused driver was authorized to drive the light motor vehicle as per Ext.C-driving licence. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal that on the date of accident the driver of the offending had no valid driving licence being ex facie erroneous is set aside. This Court on the basis of the materials on record comes to the finding that absolving the Insurance Company of the liability being fallacious is also liable to be set aside and as such the Insurance Company is found to be liable to pay the compensation. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is urged that the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi3. Reliance of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)3 is placed to fortify the submission that the amounts on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively is payable and the same 2 2009 (3) Supreme 487 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 Page 5 of 8 should be enhanced at the rate of 10%, in every three years. Relating to future prospects it is stated on instruction by the learned counsel for the Appellants- Claimants that the deceased was working as a Senior Technician in SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant and his L.Rs have not availed any benefits under the Employees Benefit Scheme. 7-A. On perusal of the basis of quantification, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants seeking enhancement. 8. On re-quantification thereof in the light of judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma2 and Pranay Sethi (supra)3, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has not awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Further, the amount of enhancement at the rate of 10%, in every three years, on conventional heads has also not been done. Hence, monthly gross salary as per Ext.11 comes to Rs.36,810/- and income tax payable is Rs.1,530/-. After deduction of income tax, it comes to Rs.36,810/- minus Rs.1,530/- = 35,280/-. Accordingly, yearly income would be Rs.35,280/- x 12 = Rs.4,23,260/-. After deduction of Rs.2,500/- Page 6 of 8 towards yearly professional tax, it comes to Rs.4,20,860/-. As the deceased was having permanent nature of job and was aged about 56 years, future prospects at the rate of 15% i.e. Rs.63,129/- would be added. As such, it comes to Rs.4,20,860/- plus Rs.63,129/- = Rs.4,83,989/-. Towards personal living expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd thereof i.e. Rs.1,61,329/- is liable to be deducted. As such, the amount comes to Rs.4,83,989/- minus Rs.1,61,329/- = Rs.3,22,660/- towards contribution for the family by the deceased. After application of 9 multiplier, loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,22,660/- x 9 = Rs.29,03,940/-. Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/- for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses ought to be added to it. As such it comes to Rs.29,03,940/- plus Rs.70,000/- = Rs.29,73,940/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)3, in every three years Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads should be enhanced at the rate of 10% from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 20.06.2015. Hence, further amount of Rs.21,000/- would be added thereon. Hence, the total compensation would be Rs.29,73,940/- plus Rs.21,000/- = Rs.29,94,940/-. Page 7 of 8 8-A. As such the awarded amount of Rs.29,76,000/- is to be enhanced to Rs.29,94.940/- and the same will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 20.06.2015. The distribution of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be in terms of the impugned award. The enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon shall be equally distributed amongst the Respondents- Claimants 1 to 3. The modified compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be deposited and disbursed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 9. It shall be open for the Insurance Company to take steps for recovery of the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, if the same is recoverable in accordance with law. 10. Court fees shall be payable by the Claimants as per Rules. 11.
Decision
Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. No costs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Aug-2025 11:23:23 Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Pradeep (V. NARASINGH) Judge Page 8 of 8