Orissa High Court
Sanyasi Behera And Another vs Ravulapati Nageswar Reddy And Ors on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.665 of 2005
Sanyasi Behera and Another .... Appellants
Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Ravulapati Nageswar Reddy and Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. N.B. Dash, counsel for Respondent No.2
Mr. G.P. Dutta, counsel for Respondent No.4
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
6.12.2022
Order No.
13. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the claimant -
Appellant, Mr. N.B. Dash, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, i.e.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for
Respondent No.4, i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is against the impugned
judgment dated 13th May, 2005 of the learned 2nd Additional District
Judge-cum-MACT, Berhampur passed in MAC Case No.81 of
2004/MAC No.78/03-GDC, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.59,850/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application has been granted on account of death
of deceased Saroj Kumar Behera in the motor vehicular accident dated
4/5th July, 2002.
4. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel submits on behalf of the
claimant - Appellants that during pendency of the appeal, Appellant
No.2, namely Smt. Sakuntala Behera died and Appellant No.1 -
Sanyasi Behera being the sole surviving dependent, there is no need
for further substitution.
5. Mr. Das continues to submit that on the date of accident the
deceased was a young man aged about 23 years, who was a bachelor,
and serving as a sales man in the pharmaceutical company of P.W.5,
namely, Bipra Charan Panda at Berhampur. But the tribunal against
such evidence adduced on record, has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.1800/- per month only. He further submits that the
multiplier applied needs to be enhanced and on the whole, the
compensation amount needs to be revisited.
6. Admittedly, the question of negligence as well as liability of the
insurance company having not been disputed, the tribunal has directed
to equally distribute the amount of compensation among both the
insurance companies.
7. Now coming to the challenge of the claimants with regard to
quantum of compensation, it is seen that as per the evidence adduced
on record the service of the deceased as a Salesman under P.W.5 is
not disputed. According to P.W.5, he was paying Rs.4,500/- to the
deceased and according to the claimants, the deceased was getting
Rs.4000/- from P.W.5. However, considering the educational
qualification of the deceased that he was a matriculate and the date of
accident, i.e. 4/5th July, 2002, the income of the deceased can be
assessed at Rs.3000/- per month.
8. It is further seen that deceased was a bachelor and the tribunal
has taken average age of the parents to determine the multiplier. This
approach of the tribunal is found erroneous in view of the principles
decided in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
Others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, the multiplier is re-fixed to
'18' instead of '8'. Adding future prospect to the extent of 40% to the
income of the deceased, the computation is made afresh as follows:-
i) Annual income [@ Rs.3000/- per month with addition of 40%,
i.e. 4200 x 12] = Rs.50,400/-
ii) Deducting 50% towards personal expenses = Rs.25,200/-
iii) Total loss of dependency = Rs.25,200/- x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-
iv) Adding Rs.70,000/- towards parental consortium and general
damages, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,23,600/-.
9. In the result the claimants are found entitled to Rs.5,23,600/-
towards compensation, payable along with interest @ 6% per annum,
equally by both the insurance companies.
10. At this stage it is submitted by Mr. Dutta as well as Mr. N.B.
Dash that in the meantime the amount of Rs.59,850 along with
interest @ 6% per annum has been deposited by the insurers before
the tribunal.
11. Mr. Das however submits that the amount deposited by the
insurance companies has not been realized by the claimants yet.
However, without entering into such dispute, both the insurance
companies are directed to deposit before the tribunal the aforesaid
compensation amount by adjusting the amount, if any, already paid
and realized by the claimants in the meantime, within two months
from today and learned tribunal is directed to verify the fact and pass
such further order if necessary. The tribunal is also directed to fix
such terms and proportion for disbursement of the amount in favour of
the present claimant - Appellant No.1, namely Sanyasi Behera.
12. With aforesaid observation and direction the appeal is disposed
of.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
