Orissa High Court
M/S. Shriram General Insurance vs Smt. Pramila Naik And Others on 19 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.430 of 2019
M/s. Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. Adam Ali Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Pramila Naik and Others .... Respondents
Mr. B.B. Singh, counsel for Respondents 1-3
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
19.4.2022
Order No.
09. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the insurer -
Appellant and Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for claimant -
Respondents 1-3.
2. Present appeal by the insurer has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 6th February, 2019 of learned 1st MACT, Mayurbhanj
passed in MAC No.14 of 2017 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.57,09,013/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e. 6th April, 2017 has been granted on
account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated
25th March, 2017.
3. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the insurer submits on behalf of
the Appellant that despite the vehicle being not involved in the
accident, the same has been implanted subsequently to manage
compensation. This contention of the Appellant is rejected outright in
absence of any material brought on record to support the same.
Moreover, the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle, i.e. the truck bearing registration number OR-09-F-
7211 for criminal prosecution. The contents of F.I.R. and other
materials collected in course of police investigation admittedly
supports the oral evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness.
4. It is next contended that the deceased was aged about 56 years
leaving 4 more years only to retire from service. Thus, application of
multiplier '9' is defective and the method of split multiplier should
have been applied. This submission is without any substance. It is for
the reason that, whatever may be the due date of retirement of the
deceased, admittedly he would be entitled for getting pension after his
retirement amounting 50% of his salary amount. Superannuation from
service does not mean that other prospects of income would also die
post-retirement. It is incorrect to presume that after retirement from
Government service, a person would have no other prospects of
income except getting pension. The Supreme Court in the case of N.
Jayasree vs. Chlamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited, AIR 2021 SC 5218 have held at paragraph 28 that
application of split multiplier method is not a justified approach.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned
counsel for the Appellant-insurer to find any fault in the approach of
the Tribunal for applying multiplier '9' to determine the loss of
dependency.
5. Since no other ground has been raised to challenge the quantum
of compensation, the awarded amount of compensation as directed by
the Tribunal is confirmed. However, the rate of interest is reduced to
6% from 7%.
6. In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
insurer - Appellant to deposit the awarded compensation amount of
Rs.57,09,013/- (fifty seven lakh nine thousand thirteen) before the
tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application, i.e. 6th April, 2017 within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant - Respondents on such terms and proportion as
contained in the impugned judgment.
7. The statutory deposit made by the appellant before this court
along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant - insurer on
proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the
awarded amount before the tribunal.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
