JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING AND ORDER
Case Details
‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.710 of 2019 In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Master Canteen Square, Bhubaneswar … Appellant -versus- 1. Jhumpei Behera 2. Karuna Behera 3. Kumari Meena Behera …. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. B.N. Udgata, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. U.P. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING AND ORDER : 09.10.2025 V. Narasingh, J. I.A. No.1386 of 2019 1. Present MACA has been filed assailing the Award dtd. 17.04.2018 passed by the 3rd M.A.C.T, Page 1 of 10 Bhubaneswar in M.A.C No.539 of 1997 directing the award of compensation of Rs. 4,73,700/- on account of death of the husband of Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay of 456 days in filing the appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the Respondents. 4. This Court perused the recitals in the I.A. relating to condonation of delay. For convenience of reference, Paragraphs-3 and 4 thereof are extracted hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx 3.That after passing of the impugned award on 17.04.2018, the advocate at the lower court applied for the certified copy on 06/07/2019 and certified copy of the same was ready on 05/08/2019 and such copy of the judgment was delivered and received on 05/08/2019 by the advocate in the lower court. It is not out of place to mention here that the above MACT case was initially entrusted to on Mr. J. Rehman, Advocate at Bhubaneswar but the same was subsequently entrusted to one Abani Kumar Patanaik, Advocate at Bhubaneswar who could not get Page 2 of 10 any papers/documents from the earlier advocate in spite of request to him. However the counsel conducting the case before the court below collecting a free copy of the judgment and examining the same vis-(cid:224)-vis the stand of the insurance company, submitted the copy along with his opinion for preferring an appeal. However he applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order as well as depositions and exhibits on 06/07/2019. The Divisional Office of the present appellant at Bhubaneswar after receiving the copy of the judgment and order as well as the opinion of the advocate on 17.06.2019, in turn as per the established procedure endorsed the file to the legal cell at Cuttack. The legal cell at Cuttack after receiving the file and after thorough examination of the file, recommended for preferring the appeal on 30.07.2019 and accordingly approval of the Regional Office was sought on 01.08.2019. 4. That the Regional Office at Bhubaneswar after receiving the file as well as the judgment and order along with the opinion, scrutinized the same and a policy decision was taken to move this Hon’ble Court and the file was received back in the legal cell and the Page 3 of 10 legal cell on 16.09.2019 entrusted the matter for filing the present appeal to their counsel and by that time the advocate appearing in the court below supplied the certified copy of the Judgment on 05/08/2019. The dealing advocate before this Hon’ble Court after receiving the file on 12.10.2019 and after formulating the of grounds of appeal files this appeal on 14.10.2019 immediately on reopening after Puja vacation. xxx xxx xxx” On perusal of the same, This Court is not persuaded to hold that the grounds stated therein can be treated as “sufficient cause” as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Post Master General & others vrs. Living Media Ltd. & another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 6. 7. Accordingly, I.A stands dismissed. Since I.A has been dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court does not delve into the merit of the recitals of the memorandum of appeal, hence the
Decision
MACA stands disposed of. 8. The statutory deposit along with accurued interest be refunded to the Insurance Company as per the establish procedure, within a period of six Page 4 of 10 weeks, subject to the Insurance Company submitting proof of the deposit of the amount before the tribunal as per the order passed in the connected cross- objection. 9. It is needless to state that the recovery right as granted by the tribunal remains unaffected. Cross Objection 10. This Cross objection has been preferred under Order 41, Rule-22 CPC in MACA No.710 of 2019, seeking enhancement by the Claimants, being aggrieved by the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,73,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the Claim Application, i.e. 22.12.1997, passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T, Bhubaneswar in M.A.C No.539 of 1997, dated 17.04.2018. 11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in computation of the income of the deceased and it is also stated that the Claimants are also entitled to periodical enhancement of compensation on account of the conventional heads in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Page 5 of 10 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are also entitled to the Parental Consortium in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Udgata, submits that the amount as awarded does not call for any interference. Hence, the cross-objection for enhancement is liable to be rejected. 14. The methodology for quantification has been reiterated by the Apex Court claim for enhancement has been reiterated in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and ors, (2021) 11 SCC 780. The claim for enhancement has to be adjudged in the light of such judgment and the decisions cited by the Claimant. 15. It is apt to note that the case of the claimant is that the deceased was a mason earning between Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month. 16. Learned Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.2,250/- per month @ Rs.75/- per day in the year, 1996. Page 6 of 10 17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed on record the rate of minimum wages per day in terms of the notification of the Government relating to the different workers. The accident in question relates to the year 1996 and it is seen that the minimum wages per day in the year 1996 for highly skilled was Rs. 48/-. 18. Taking note of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Claimant that the amount need to be enhanced of the ground of income. 19. Since the appeal of the Insurance Company has been dismissed, the amount as awarded on the ground of income cannot be reduced. 20. So far as the award of Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads comprising Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and for loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Claimant that the same is liable to be enhanced in terms of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra). By the said judgment, it was directed that the amount so quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. Page 7 of 10 21. At the time of unfortunate accident the Claimants- Appellant No. 2 and 3, who are son and daughter of the deceased were aged about 5 and 2 years. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram(Supra) and , this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to Parental Consortium of each Rs.40,000/-(Rs.40,000x2). 22. Though the accident was in the year 1996, treating the cross-objection as continuation of the proceeding and on a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and in the light of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, the compensation that the Claimants are entitled is computed as under; Income per month 1/3rd of the income deducted towards personal and living expenses 40% of the deducted amount added future towards prospects Compensation after multiplier of “16” is applied. Rs.2,250/- Rs.1,500/- Rs.2,100/- Rs.4,03,200/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- (as enhanced at the rate of 10% in a span of three years) Page 8 of 10 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- (as enhanced at the rate of 10% in a span of three years) Spousal Consortium Rs.48,000/- terms of Pranay Sethi (in (supra)) Parental Consortium Rs.96,000/- (as enhanced at the rate of 10% in a span of three years) Total Rs.5,83,200/- Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Claimants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,09,500/- (Rs.5,83,200-Rs.4,73,700) with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing, i.e.20.12.1997 till the date of payment within eight weeks from this day, failing which it will entail @9% interest from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 22.12.1997 till its actual payment. 23. Considering such submission of the learned counsel for the Claimants in the cross-objection, it is directed that out of the awarded amount along with accrued interest by the Tribunal and the enhanced compensation with interest, 60% shall be released in favour of the claimants out of which 30% shall be released in favour of the Claimant No.1 and 15 % each in favour of both Claimant Nos.2 and 3. The Page 9 of 10 balance 40% shall be kept in a Nationalized Bank for a period of five years with interest payable quarterly. The amount so deposited shall not be encumbered without the leave of the Tribunal. The amount, if any already paid shall be deducted from the aforementioned compensation so above. 24. The Claimants shall be liable to pay Court fee as per rules. 25. In view of the disposal of the Cross Objection, pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. Costs made easy. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th October 2025/Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Oct-2025 13:44:33 Page 10 of 10