Orissa High Court
Manarama Palai And Another vs Kartika Chandra Mohanty And ... on 15 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.769 of 2012
Manarama Palai and Another .... Appellants
Mr. S.B. Udgata, Advocate
-versus-
Kartika Chandra Mohanty and Another .... Respondents
Ms. S. Das on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mohanty,
counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
15.12.2022
Order No.
13. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.B. Udgata, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellants and Ms. S. Das on behalf of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned
counsel for insurer - Respondent No.2.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is against the impugned
judgment dated 9th April, 2012 of learned 2nd MACT, N.D.,
Sambalpur passed in MAC No.160 of 2010 (S.B.P.), wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.6,60,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 14th
December, 2010 has been granted on account of death of deceased
Radhakanta Palei in the motor vehicular accident dated 12th
November, 2010.
4. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel contends on behalf of the
claimants that the tribunal first of all has took a reduced amount of
income of the deceased and further, did neither add future prospects to
his income nor grant adequate amount for consortium. The tribunal
also applied a wrong multiplier taking the age of the parents, instead
of the deceased.
5. Ms. Das, on the other hand submits that the Tribunal while
arriving annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- took note of
the copies of income tax (I.T.) returns filed under Ext.12 to Ext.14,
which justifies such assessment of the tribunal. She further submits
that, the deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal considered the age of
his parents for multiplier purpose.
6. It is seen that under Ext.12 to 14 are the copies of IT returns for
the assessment years (AY) 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the
income for the AY 2007-08 was Rs.99,800/-, Rs.1,13,000/- for AY
2008-09 and Rs.1,55,000/- for AY 2009-10. The average income for
last three assessment years thus comes to Rs.1,22,600/- and therefore,
the assessment made by the Tribunal in fixing the annual income at
Rs.1,00,00/- is found justified. It is for the reason that no other
document or material could be produced on record with regard to
income of the deceased to such extent or his employment as a Sub-
contractor.
7. It is further seen from the impugned judgment that, the Tribunal
taking the average age of the parents of the deceased applied
multiplier '13', though the deceased was undisputedly aged about 24
years. The law has been well-settled now in the case of Sarala
Verma(smt) vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6
SCC 121, and in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 that, the age of the deceased has to be
considered for the purpose of determining multiplier. Thus, in the
instant case the appropriate multiplier is found to be '18'.
8. Confirming the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per
annum and after adding 40% to the same towards future prospects, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,60,000/-. Adding
Rs.1,00,000/- thereto towards consortium to both the parents as well
as general damages (keeping the date of death in view), the total
compensation amount is determined at Rs.13,60,000/-, payable along
with interest @ 6% per annum.
9. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
insurer - Respondent No.2 to deposit a total compensation of
Rs.13,60,000/- (thirteen lakhs sixty thousand) before the tribunal
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 14th December, 2010, within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant - Appellants on such terms and proportion to be
decided by learned tribunal.
10. In case the amount directed by the Tribunal has been realized
by the claimants in the meantime, the same shall be adjusted from the
total compensation amount directed above.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
