Orissa High Court
The New India Assurance Company vs Chhatrai Mahanta And Others on 10 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.60 of 2014
The New India Assurance Company .... Appellant
Ltd.
Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Chhatrai Mahanta and Others .... Respondents
Mr. K.C. Nayak, counsel for Respondent Nos.1-3
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
10.11.2021
Order No.
12. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant -Insurer and Mr. K. C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Claimants.
2. The present appeal is against the award of learned 2 nd MACT,
Cuttack in MAC Case No.474 of 2010. The Appellant here in this
appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation granted in favour
of the Claimants on account of death of the deceased on 31st
December, 2009 due to motor vehicular accident.
3. It is contended by Mr. Dash that the Tribunal while disbelieving
Ext.9 with regard to determining monthly income of the deceased, has
abruptly came to conclusion to Rs.4000/- as his monthly income on
notional basis. Therefore, the income of the deceased having not
established on record should be accepted on complete notional basis
in view of the prescription of the statute and judgments pronounced
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Having perused the impugned judgment it is seen that the
tribunal's finding is not about disbelieving the contents of Ext.9. What
the tribunal has observed is that, Ext.9 cannot be taken as the sole
basis to determine the exact income of the deceased per month. It is
the specific observation of the Tribunal that in absence of positive
evidence about the profession and earning of the deceased at the
relevant point of time, it would be reasonable to hold the income of
the deceased notionally at Rs.4000/-. The use of word 'notionally' by
the tribunal does not mean to express notional income expressed in
the schedule of the M.V. Act, but it is the essence of Tribunal's order
that, the learned Judge has taken a reasonable income of the deceased
in absence of any definite material. The monthly income of Rs.4000/-
as determined by the tribunal taking into account the oral evidence as
well as the contents of Ext.9 is not seen with any infirmity. The rest
of the calculations arrived by the Tribunal are also in accordance with
the settled principles of law. Thus, this court does not find any ground
to interfere with such determination of quantum of compensation by
the Tribunal and accordingly the contention of the Appellant is
rejected.
5. However as seen from the earlier orders of this court dated 6th
December, 2014 and 25th June, 2015 that though the matter was
settled between the parties in the Lok Adalat for payment of
compensation by consolidated sum of Rs.4, 25,000/-, but the said
order of Lok Adalat has been recalled subsequently on 25 th June, 2015
on the application of the Claimants - Respondents. The Claimants -
Respondents are pursuing for payment of interest and as per them
such grant of interest has been inadvertently not reflected in the order
of the Lok Adalat. But in the meantime the amount arrived at the Lok
Adalat has been deposited by the Appellant - Insurer and the same has
already been received by the Claimants - Respondents.
6. Keeping in view such peculiarity happened during pendency of the
Appeal, this court is not inclined to change the amount as derived in
the Lok Adalat but at the same time the Appellant - Insurer is directed
to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount of Rs.4,25,000/-
from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 7th August, 2010
till the date of order of the Lok Adalat, i.e. 6th December, 2014.
7. The statutory deposit be refunded to the Appellant - insurer on
proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the
interest amount before the tribunal.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
