Orissa High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Simanchal Sahu And Another on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.659 of 2019
National Insurance Company Limited .... Appellant
Mr. J.R. Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, Senior
Advocate
-versus-
Simanchal Sahu and another .... Respondents
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
25.08.2022
Order No.
11. 1. Heard Mr. J.R. Deo on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. A.
Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent - claimant.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 28.03.2019 of learned 2nd M.A.C.T. (Southern Division),
Berhampur, Ganjam in M.A.C. Case No.237/2017 (226/2014-
GDC) wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.28,85,000/- has
been granted along with interest @7% per annum to the claimant
from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.26.09.2014 on
account of injury sustained in the motor vehicular accident dated
10.06.2011.
3. The main grounds of challenges advanced on behalf of the
Appellant are that the compensation granted is on higher side and
the learned Tribunal has erroneously directed not to deduct TDS
on the interest amount.
4. Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance
Company submits that the amount granted by the Tribunal for
loss of amenities of life and attendance charges have been
computed exorbitantly.
5. After hearing Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for claimant-
Respondent No.1 and perusal of the impugned judgment, it
reveals that at paragraph 29, the learned Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards pain and suffering and
another five lakhs towards loss of comfort, amenities of life,
marital status and happiness, etc. Further Rs.16,80,000/- towards
future attendance charges, Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of future
treatments, Rs.50,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5,000/-
towards cost of the proceeding has been granted totaling thereby
to Rs.28,85,000/-.
6. Upon thorough examination of the discussions made by the
learned Tribunal in respect of grant of compensation under such
heads, no such flaw is noticed except grant of compensation
towards cost of future attendance charges. It is needless to
mention that the discussions made by the learned Tribunal in
respect of other heads are found in affirmative with the principles
decided in the case of Raj Kumnar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1)
SCC 343.
7. With regard to cost of attendance charges, it is seen that the
learned Tribunal has counted two attendants for care of the
injured-claimant at the cost of Rs.5,000/- each per month for the
rest of his life till he attains 70 years. For this purpose, the
multiplier applied is '14' by taking the age of the injured 56 years
and his normal life expectancy up-to 70 years. In other words, the
learned Tribunal has applied the number of differential years as
multiplier ignoring the multiplier table decided in the case of
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is well settled principle that
for the purpose of determining the expenses, the multiplier factor
as mentioned in Sarla Verma's case (supra) has to be applied and
not the differential years of age. If the age of the injured is taken
at 56 years, as held by the learned Tribunal in the impugned
judgment which remains undisputed, the applicable multiplier
would be '9' in terms of the table mentioned in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra). Thus without disturbing the cost of attendance
charges as determined by the Tribunal which is taken at
Rs.10,000/- per month, the future cost of attendance charges
would come to Rs.10,80,000/- against the amount of
Rs.16,80,000/- as determined by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the compensation amount is found reducible by
Rs.6 lakhs.
8. Thus the modified amount of compensation is determined at
Rs.22,85,000/-, payable along with 6% interest per annum.
9. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Appellant--Insurance Company to deposit the modified
compensation amount of Rs.22,85,000/- (rupees twenty-two lakhs
eighty-five thousand) along with interest @6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim application i.e.26.09.2014 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 fixed by the Tribunal.
10. With regard to the direction of the learned Tribunal not to
deduct TDS from the interest amount, this Court in the case of
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company
Limited vs. Brushadhwaja Gouda and another, (disposed of on
13.07.2022 in MACA No.1 of 2019) has held that TDS amount is
deductable at the time of deposit of the award. Applying same
principles, the direction of the Tribunal in that respect is set aside
and the insurer is free to deduct the required amount of TDS from
the interest amount at the time of deposit before the learned
Tribunal.
11. On deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal
and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund
application before this Court, the statutory deposit made before
this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the
Appellant-Insurance Company.
12. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
