The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Puspa Dalai & another …… Petitioners -Versus- Rabi Bal & others ….. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. D. Patnaik, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : None For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.3 to 7: None CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing and Judgment : 30.04.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioners, who are the Claimants in M.A.C.T. Case No.293 of 2021, have approached this Court being
Legal Reasoning
aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Court below in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 and M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021, vide which their petition to re-fix the terms of apportionment of the compensation amount in the ratio of 80:20 amongst the Petitioners in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021 and M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 stood rejected confirming the original award, vide which it was ordered that the awarded amount shall be apportioned in the ratio of 61:39 amongst the Petitioners in both the cases i.e. M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021 and M.A.C. No.457 of 2020. The Tribunal rejected the said petition on the ground that there is no compelling circumstance to recall or modify the common order dated 20th May, 2022 passed in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 and M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021. 2. Though the contesting Opposite Parties were duly noticed, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 to 7 go unrepresented. However, the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company, who was also a party to the cases before the Court below, being noticed, has appeared through its counsel. 3. Since the Petition dated 03.06.2022 filed by the Petitioners before the Tribunal, which was rejected, has not been annexed to the Writ Petition, being so directed, the Petitioners have filed the said petition by way of an affidavit on 1st December, 2023. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company. 5. The case of the Petitioners is that they are the Claimants in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021, which was filed W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, they being the widow and minor son of the deceased-Indramani Dalai, who died in a road accident. The parents, unmarried sister and younger brothers of the deceased-Indramani Dalai also preferred an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation towards death of Indramani Dalai, which was registered as M.A.C. No.457 of 2020. During pendency of the said cases, the Counsel for the present Petitioners so also Counsel for the claimants/petitioners in M.A.C. No.457 of 2022 approached the present Opposite Party No.2 for settlement of both the cases amicably. Being agreed by the Competent Authority of the Opposite Party No.2- Insurance Company, both the cases were settled for a sum of Rs.12,85,000/-. However, it was agreed upon by the parties of both the cases to approach the Tribunal regarding apportionment of the compensation amount between them in accordance with law. Both the counsel for the present Petitioners (claimants in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021) and Counsel for the Claimants/Petitioners in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 signed the compromise sheet in terms of the averments made in para-3 of the said compromise petition. However, W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 3 of 8 after getting the award passed by the Court below, the Petitioners were surprised to notice that the Court below has passed the order to apportion the awarded amount in the ratio of 61% in favour of the Petitioners and 39% in favour of the parents and unmarried sister & brothers of late Indramani Dalai, who were the Claimants in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020. Knowing so, the Petitioners filed the petition for modification of the said order dated 20th May, 2022 with a prayer to re-fix the ratio of apportionment of the compromised awarded amount in the ratio of 80:20 on the ground that after the death of Indramani Dalai, the Petitioners being the widow and minor son, are suffering for their maintenance so also for education of the minor son of the deceased as immediately after the death of the deceased, the in-laws/family members, who are the Claimants/Petitioners in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020, drove the Petitioners away from their house, for which one F.I.R. was also registered before the concerned P.S. Since the Petitioners (Claimants in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021) are the widow and minor son of the deceased, as per the settled principle of law they are entitled to get 80% of the compensation amount. But the Court below, while making W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 apportionment of the compensation amount, has awarded 61% of the compensation amount in their favour even though, except the mother of the deceased, the other Petitioners in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 being the father, major brothers and sister, are not entitled to get any compensation and awarding 39% of the compensation amount in their favour is unreasonable and illegal. Hence, a prayer was made to rectify/modify the order dated 20th May, 2022 to the effect that instead of apportionment of the compensation amount in the ratio of 61:39, it should be in the ratio of 80:20, because of the reasons detailed in the said petition. 6. As is revealed from the impugned order dated 20th September, 2020, no written objection was filed by the Claimants in M.A.C.T. No.457 of 2020 opposing to the said prayer made by the present Petitioners (Claimants in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021). As is further revealed from the impugned
Legal Reasoning
order, learned Counsel for the Claimants in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020, instead of filing written objection denying the allegation of desertion, simply made an oral submission before the Tribunal that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below dated 20th May, 2022 for W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 5 of 8 disbursement of the awarded amount in the ratio of 61:39 between the Claimants/ Petitioners in both the cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the said petition vide order dated 20th September, 2022, on the ground that there is no such compelling circumstance to recall or modify the order dated 20th May, 2022. Hence, this Writ Petition. 7. In the present case, being noticed, the contesting Opposite Party Nos.3 to 7, who were the Claimants in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020, also choose not to appear and oppose to the
Decision
prayer made in the Writ Petition. Admittedly, though there is an allegation in the petition filed on 3rd June, 2022 that after the death of Indramani Dalai, the present Petitioners were driven out from the house of the deceased and for that an F.I.R. was lodged before the Police Station and they are languishing and because of financial constraint leading a miserable life and the Petitioner No.1 is unable to impart proper education to the Petitioner No.2, who is a minor and such allegations made before the Court below so also before this Court have not been denied by the present Opposite Party Nos.3 to 7, this Court is of the view that the Court below ought to have accepted the prayer made vide petition dated W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 3rd June, 2022 filed by the Petitioners and modified the order dated 20th May, 2022 with regard to re-fixing of the ratio of apportionment of the compensation amount in the ratio 80:20 instead of 61:39, as was ordered vide order dated 20th May, 2022. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th September, 2022 as at Anenxure-1 is set aside. The award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 20th May, 2022 in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 and M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021 is modified to the extent that the awarded amount of Rs.12,85,000/- shall be apportioned amongst the Petitioners in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021 and Petitioners in M.A.C. No.457 of 2020 in the ratio of 80:20, instead of 61:39. 9. As is ascertained from the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company, in view of the dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased-Indramani Dalai, the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company is yet to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.12,85,000/- before the Court below. Hence, the Opposite Party No.2-Insurnace Company is directed to deposit Rs.12,85,000/- with the Court W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 below within four weeks hence. The awarded amount on being so deposited, the Tribunal shall do well to re-fix the terms of deposit and disbursement in favour of the Petitioners in M.A.C No.457 of 2020 so also present Petitioners, who were Petitioners in M.A.C.T. No.293 of 2021, as it thinks just and proper. 10. With the said observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost. …….…..……………… S.K. MISHRA, J. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 30th April, 2024 /Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 08-May-2024 10:08:00 W.P.(C) No.29020 of 2022 Page 8 of 8