The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.380 of 2018 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 & 05.05.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A. No.28 of 2013 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 & 21.03.2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Berhampur in C.S. No.395 of 2010. ---- The Vice-President, Authorized Officer, SOUTHCO Utility, Berhampur -versus- …. Appellant Smt. Jhunu Gouda & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate Mr.D.N.Mohapatra, Smt.J.Mohanty, P.K. Nayak, S.N.Dash, P.K. Pasayat and P.Mohanty (Advocates) For Respondents - Ms.Deepali Mohapatra, (Advocate for R.1) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 : Date of Judgment: 13.11.2023 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the Page 1 of 5 R.S.A. No.380 of 2018 {{ 2 }} judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 & 05.05.2018 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in R.F.A. No. 28 of 2013. The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.395 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Berhampur claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 12% from the Appellant (Defendant). The suit stood decreed directing the Appellant (Defendant) to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from that date of filing of the suit. The Respondent (Plaintiff) being aggrieved by the same, had filed Appeal under section 96 of the Code which has been allowed in part. The First Appellate Court has directed the Appellant (Defendant) to pay a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 17.09.2010 till actual payment. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the First Appellate Court is right in enhancing the quantum of compensation, as had been awarded by the Trial Court, by assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2700/- instead of Rs.1500/- as held by the Trial Court by differing with the Trial Court that such Page 2 of 5 R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 {{ 3 }} income for eight months is to be taken into account for the whole year?” 4. Heard Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant on the ground taken by the First Appellate Court in enhancing the compensation as well as the rate of interest over the awarded compensation. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made, the judgment of the First Appellate Court being carefully gone through, it is seen that the Trial Court, having assessed the income of the Ranka Gouda (deceased) who died on account of electrocution due to the negligence on the part of the employees of the Defendant No.1 at Rs.1500/- per month, the First Appellate Court has assessed the same at Rs.2700/- per month and accordingly, computing the annual income of the deceased, has determined the compensation by disagreeing with the view of the Trial Court that for assessing the yearly income giving a break of four months is not proper. Accordingly, selecting the proper multiplier of fourteen (14) for the age group of the deceased, adding the reasonable sum towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- towards compensation holding it to be just and proper. R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 Page 3 of 5 {{ 4 }} The First Appellate Court has assessed the monthly income of the deceased, who was working as a labouerer by taking cue from the minimum wage prescribed by the Government of Odisha as was then prevailing. When the Trial Court had not taken that into account, the First Appellate Court in doing so in my considered view is wholly justified in doing so. That apart, the Trial Court had taken a view that while calculating the annual income of the deceased, four months have to be taken to be the period without work as it ordinarily happens in cases of said labourers. That being done without any evidence on record, the First Appellate Court has taken a view that people hailing from poor status in the society living on daily wages seldom have the luxury to sit idle unless there stands an extremely compelling circumstance which in the case has not been shown. The above view appears to be quite sound when the view taken by the Trial Court, was without any basis. In that view of the matter, this Court finds the enhancement quantum of compensation made by the First Appellate Court from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,72,000/- is wholly justified and in my view no such wrong has been committed by the First Appellate Court. However, it is seen that when the Trial Court had awarded interest over the compensation amount @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. on 17.09.2010 till payment, the First Appellate Court has enhanced the rate of interest to 12% per annum. R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 Page 4 of 5 {{ 5 }} It was submitted at the Bar that after disposal of the suit, the decretal dues had been paid to the Plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, while enhancing the rate of interest, appears to have given no such reason. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the First Appellate court having enhanced the quantum of compensation ought not to have enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 12% per annum. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered by saying that the First Appellate Court did commit no mistake in enhancing the quantum of compensation to Rs.3,72,000/- except enhancing the rate of interest from 6% awarded by the Trial Court to 12% per annum. 6.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and in the peculiar circumstances without cost. The Defendant No.1 is held liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand) to the Plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 17.09.2010. The amount of compensation already received by the Defendant No.1 be accordingly deducted from the total compensation and the balance if any be paid to the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1 within three months hence failing which the interest @15% will run from today. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Nov-2023 15:07:57 Gitanjali R.S.A. No. 380 of 2018 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 5 of 5