JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing and Judgment
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1208 of 2018 In the matter of an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant -versus- 1.Dillip Kumar Ray 2. Ushasi Ray 3.Tanha Ray 4.Bijay Kumar Prusty …. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. G.P Dutta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate (R-1 to R-3) Mr.B.K. Das, Advocate (R-4) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing and Judgment : 30.06.2025 V. Narasingh, J. I.A No.1888 of 2018 This is an application for condonation of delay of 122 days in filing the appeal. Page 1 of 7 2.
Legal Reasoning
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the recitals in the I.A, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3.
Decision
I.A is accordingly disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge MACA No.1208 of 2018 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned 7th M.A.C.T, Bhubaneswar in M.A.C No.366 of 2015 correcting the arithmetical errors in awarding compensation of Rs.20,23,995/-. 3. Deceased Rohit Ray is the son of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of Respondent No.3. It is alleged that on 23.01.2015 while the deceased was coming by his motor cycle, the offending truck bearing registration number OR-02-BD-6872 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased for which the said Rohit Ray suffered grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the said injuries at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Accepting Page 2 of 7 that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as a Project Executive under the establishment of Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore and was getting a salary of Rs.19,040/- per month, the Respondents 1 to 3- Claimants sought for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.38,45,744/-. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “i. Whether the case filed by the Petitioners against the O.Ps is maintainable? ii. Whether the O.Ps are liable to pay any compensation amount to the Petitioners? iii. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for any compensation amount as prayed by them in column No.21 of the application/petition? iv. To what relief(s) the Petitioners are entitled for as per law and equity?” In order to substantiate their claim, Respondent No.1 examined himself as P.W. 1. One Independent Witness as P.W.2 and the General Manager, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as P.W.3 and documents were exhibited on behalf of the Page 3 of 7 Claimants and marked as Exts.1 to 10/a. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company but driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was marked on their behalf as Ext.A. Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for compensation of Rs.20,23,995/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment and the right of recovery was given to the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Dutta referring to the recitals of the appeal vis- à-vis the impugned judgment assails the award on the following three grounds; “I. Admittedly at the time of the alleged accident the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and as the owner of the offending vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no effective driving licence, learned Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant to pay the amount and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. II. Learned Tribunal in absence of any concrete material that at the time of the accident the deceased was in a permanent income, job future erroneously added 50% prospects instead of 40%. Further learned Tribunal committed error in not deducting established towards having and Page 4 of 7 Income Tax from the income of the deceased particularly when the income of the deceased comes within the taxable range. III. Learned Tribunal also committed error in applying 17 as multiplier particularly when the deceased was a bachelor and claimants are the parents and major sister of the deceased and therefore learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier keeping in view the age of the parents.” 6. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Claimants. Whereas learned counsel appearing for the owner submits that in the facts of the present case right of recovery ought not to be afforded to the Insurance Company. 7. Since admittedly no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Owner-Respondent No.4, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same on account of the grounds relating to the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, law in this regard is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) Supreme 487 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 that the age of the deceased Page 5 of 7 has to be taken into account for application of the multiplier and this Court does not find any infirmity in affording right of recovery to the Insurance Company. 9. On a conspectus of the evidence on record and law governing the field, this Court feels that modifying the compensation from Rs.20,23,995/- to Rs.20 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid modified compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the compensation amount shall be disbursed proportionately amongst the Claimants in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is reiterated that the right of recovery as granted is not interfered with. On production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the learned Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest Page 6 of 7 be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper application. 10. The MACA is accordingly disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th June, 2025/Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 31-Jul-2025 14:08:52 Page 7 of 7