Orissa High Court
Mamatarani Mohapatra And Others vs Kishore Rout And Another on 24 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.894 of 2013
Mamatarani Mohapatra and Others .... Appellants
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Kishore Rout and Another .... Respondents
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mohanty, counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
23.12.2021
Order No.
13. 1. Heard Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimants -
Appellants and Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the insurer -
Respondent No.2.
2. The present appeal by the claimants has been directed against
the judgment dated 6th July, 2013 of learned 1st MACT, Cuttack in
MAC Case No.209 of 2008.
3. The learned tribunal upon adjudicating the dispute has directed
to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.3,93,500/- along with interest
@ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.
17th February, 2008 on account of death of the deceased in a motor
vehicular accident on 9th December, 2007.
4. The case of the claimants is that the deceased while going by
riding a bicycle, the offending vehicle, i.e. motor cycle bearing
registration No.OR 04 G 3954 dashed against him being driven in a
rash and negligent manner causing his death. It is the further case of
the claimants that the deceased was working as a Manager-cum-
Salesman in Chandan traders and getting salary of Rs.6000/- per
month.
5. It is further submitted on behalf of the claimant - Appellants
that the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the case of the claimants on
the aspect of monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6000/-
as a Manager-cum-Salesman and on the other hand took his notional
income at Rs.3000/- per month relying on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad
Tabbar and Another, AIR (2008) SC 1858. It is submitted that
despite the evidence adduced in the court, learned Tribunal has erred
in disbelieving the case of the claimants with regard to his income. It
is also submitted that the deductions towards personal expenses
should be counted at 1/4th of the total income instead of 1/3rd as taken
by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Appellants further
urged to add future prospects of income in favour of the claimants.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the insurer and upon perusal
of the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality in the approach
of the learned Tribunal in disbelieving the case of the claimants about
monthly income of the deceased in absence of any documentary
proof. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to
acceptance of notional income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- based on
the principle decided in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) is confirmed.
7. So far regarding the deduction towards personal expenditure
is concerned, keeping in view the principles propounded in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and considering the number of dependants which
are 5, the deduction should be 1/4th of the total amount instead of
1/3rd. Further considering the age of deceased as 33 years accepted by
the learned Tribunal, the future prospects applicable to the present
case is taken at 40%.
8. Similarly, the claimants are also entitled to further amount
under the head of parental/filial consortium relying on the principles
decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130. Accordingly, the compensation is calculated as
follows:-
Sl. Head Compensation awarded
i Monthly income Rs.3000/-
ii Future prospects Rs.1200/- (i.e. 40% of
income)
iii After deducting 1/4th towards Rs.3150/-
personal expenditure, monthly
income comes to
iv Applying multiplier '16' the Rs.3150 X 12 X 16 =
loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,04,800
v Towards loss of estate, loss of Rs.70,000/-
consortium (spousal) and
funeral expenses
vi Loss of parental/filial (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- )
consortium = Rs.80,000/-
Total Rs.7,54,800/-
9. So the total compensation amount is arrived at Rs.7,54,800/-
which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application, i.e. 17th February, 2008.
10. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the insurer
that the amount as directed by the learned Tribunal along with interest
has been deposited by the insurer and the same has been released in
favour of the claimants. Keeping the same in view, the insurer -
Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the differential amount, i.e.
Rs.3,61,300 along with interest @ 6% per annum before the learned
Tribunal within eight weeks from today and the same shall be
disbursed in favour of the claimants in such proportion and terms to
be decided by the learned Tribunal.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
