The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1156 of 2023 Manager Legal (T.P. Hub), M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate Bulu Nayak & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Respondents Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 05.10.2024 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company and Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-Respondents. 3. The present appeal has been filed challenging Judgment dtd.24.07.2023 so passed by the learned 4th MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No. 3453 of 2014. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.18,41,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization. The Tribunal also allowed default interest @ 8% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Claimants- Respondents are all brothers of the deceased. It is contended that during examination of the witnesses before the Tribunal, it came on record that Respondent No. 2 is working in this Court having been appointed much prior to the death of the deceased. Similarly, Claimant-Respondent No. 3 joined in this Court after 1 year and 6 Page 1 of 6. months of the death of the deceased. Claimants-Respondent No. 1 was a Cultivator and as found from the impugned Judgment, he was held dependent on the income of the deceased along with Respondent No. 3. By holding so, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.18,41,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that since Respondent No. 3 got the job just after 1 year and 6 months of the death of the deceased and he is now working in this Court, he cannot be treated as dependent on the deceased after his appointment. 4.2. It is also contended that in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex court so rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Pal & Ors., 2024(1) TAC 3 (SC), the Claimants-Respondents being the brothers of the deceased, they are not eligible and entitled to get the compensation as directed by the Tribunal. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 5 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “5. In absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents as because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” 4.3. Making all these submissions learned counsel for the Appellant- Company contended that the impugned Judgment needs interference of this Court. 5. Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants- Respondents on the other hand contended that taking into account the fact that Claimant-Respondent No. 2 was appointed in this Court Page 2 of 6. much prior to the death of the deceased, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal in his favour. 5.1. Taking into account the fact that Claimant-Respondent No. 1 is a Cultivator and was dependent on the deceased and Claimant- Respondent No. 3 since was appointed after the death of the deceased who was also a dependent at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation at Rs.18,41,200/-. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the said compensation never take into consideration the House Rent and medical allowance as due and admissible to the deceased employee. It is contended that had the said two allowances being taken into consideration, the compensation amount should have been assessed at a higher side and a cross objection has been filed accordingly seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5.2. Not only that challenging the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claimants-Respondents being the brothers of the deceased are not eligible to get the compensation, Mr. Singh relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors., 2020 (1) TAC 675 (SC). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 15 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. Page 3 of 6. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between 1,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” 5.3. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court so rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. as cited supra, this Court while confirming the award, should enhance the same as the Tribunal while assessing the compensation never take into consideration the House Rent allowance and medicine allowance so received by the deceased. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the claim application was filed by the Claimants-Respondents being the brothers of the deceased employee. As found from the record Respondent No. 1 is a Cultivator and Respondent No. 2 was already appointed on regular basis in this Court much prior to the death of the deceased. Respondent No. 3 was also appointed in this Court after 1 year and 6 months of the death of the deceased. Taking into account the fact that the Claimant-Respondent No. 2 was appointed much prior to the death of the deceased, no compensation has been awarded in his favour and it is the view of this Court that the Tribunal has rightly not allowed any compensation in favour of Respondent No. 2. 6.1. With regard to the assessment of compensation in favour of Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, it is the view of this Court that since Claimant-Respondent No. 3 got appointment in this Court as a Page 4 of 6. regular employee just after 1 and ½ year of the death of the deceased, the Tribunal should not have assessed compensation in his favour, by treating him as a dependant on the deceased for all time to come. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. so cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant, it is the view of this Court that the compensation assessed at Rs.18,41,200/- is required to be reduced in view of the fact that Claimant-Respondent No. 3 should not be taken as a dependent after his appointment as against a regular post in this Court. 6.2. Therefore, while waiving out the penal interest levied @ 8% per annum, it is the view of this Court the compensation amount is required to be reduced to Rs.16,00,000/- with interest @ 6% payable from the date of filing of the application till its payment. It is also the view of this Court that out of the compensation amount so assessed by this Court at Rs.16,00,000/-, Claimant-Respondent No. 1 will be entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and Claimant-Respondent No. 3 will be entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. 6.3. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant-Company to deposit compensation amount of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount by holding the Respondent No. 1 entitled to get compensation amount of Page 5 of 6. Rs.10,00,000/- and Respondent No. 3 at Rs.6,00,000/- and disburse the amount proportionately in terms of the Judgment dtd.24.07.2023. 6.4. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of Rs.16,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its payment. 6.5. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued interest if any from the Registry on proper identification.
Decision
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2024 15:36:31 Page 6 of 6.