Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Muktanjali [email protected] And ... on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1302 of 2018 & MACA No.1271 of 2018
In MACA No.1302 of 2018
Divisional Manager, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Muktanjali [email protected] and others .... Respondents
Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
In MACA No.1271 of 2018
Muktanjali [email protected] and others .... Appellants
Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Rajesh Kumar Chopra and another .... Respondents
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
16.08.2022
Order No.
MACA Nos.1302 & 1271 of 2018
07. 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
claimants.
2. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated
25.08.2018 of the learned 3rd MACT, Rourkela in M.A.C. Case
No.166 of 2016 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.40,15,000/- has been granted along with interest @6% per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim
application on account of death of the deceased in a motor
vehicular accident dated 11.03.2016, are heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
3. In MACA No.1302 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company,
the award is questioned on the ground that the learned Tribunal
has wrongly accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-
per month. On the other hand, the claimants in MACA No.1271
of 2018 have prayed for enhancement of the compensation
amount on the ground that no future prospects has been granted to
the income of the deceased and no consortium has been granted
to the Claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4.
4. Upon hearing both the parties and perusal of the impugned
order, it reveals from the discussions made under paragraph 9 that
the learned Tribunal based on the pay slip for the month of
January, 2016 under Ext.9 has determined the income of the
deceased at Rs.40,000/- though the same depicts receipt of
monthly salary at Rs.36,800/- as gross amount. The learned
Tribunal relying on the pay revision order of the deceased,
marked under Ext.10/a, took the basic pay of the deceased at
Rs.36,800/- and by adding extra amount towards other allowances
has calculated his monthly income at Rs.40,000/-. It needs to be
mentioned here that no evidence is brought here from the side of
the claimants for any extra amount to be added towards
allowances.
5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contends that Ext.9, which is the pay slip for the month of
January, 2016, shows Treasury Bill No.107 dated 18.3.2018.
Therefore such document is genuinely doubtful one and should
not be relied upon. He further contends that since in the pay
revision order under Ext.10/a, the option exercised is mentioned
to be 'suo motu' after death of the employee, the same cannot be
accepted as a valid document to rely upon.
6. Both such grounds raised by Mr. Dutta are without merit. It is
for the reason that after coming into force of the ORSP Rules,
2017, the pay of the Govt. employee were revised with
retrospective effect from 1.1.2016. When the deceased died in
March, 2016, therefore the word 'Suo Motu' has been mentioned
at Serial No.14 of the pay revision order under Ext.10/a.
Admittedly the pay of the deceased was revised in February, 2018
as reveals from Ext.10/a. Accordingly, the revised salary bill from
January, 2016 onwards were submitted after February, 2018.
Therefore, no illegality or irregularity is noticed from Ext.9 and
Ext.10/a to disbelieve the figures or words mentioned therein. As
such, the contentions raised by Mr. Dutta to doubt the
genuineness of those documents are rejected.
7. Considering the income of the deceased at such rate
mentioned in Ext.9 and adding 15% future prospects to the same
after deducting necessary amount towards professional tax and
income tax payable, the annual income comes to Rs.5,00,572/-.
Deducting 1/4th from the same towards personal expenses, the
annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,75,429/-. Applying
multiplier '11' thereto and adding Rs.30000/- towards general
damages and Rs.1,60,000/- towards consortium (Rs.40,000/- for
each of the claimants), the total compensation of Rs.43,19,719/-
is arrived at, and the insurer is liable to pay the same.
8. Resultantly, both the appeals are disposed of with a direction
to the Appellant-Insurance Company in MACA No.1302 of 2018
to deposit the total compensation of Rs.43,19,719/- (rupees forty-
three lakhs nineteen thousand seven hundred nineteen) before the
Tribunal along with interest @6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e.16.04.2016 within a period of
two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed
in favour of the claimants on such terms and proportion to be
decided by the learned Tribunal.
9. On deposit of the award amount by the insurer before the
learned Tribunal and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit
with refund application before this Court, the statutory deposit
made in MACA No.1302 of 2018 before this Court with accrued
interest thereon shall be refunded to the insurer.
10. The certified copies of the documents filed in course of
hearing are kept on record.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
