Orissa High Court
The Branch Manager vs Saraswati Nath And Others on 11 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1143 of 2015
The Branch Manager, Oriental .... Appellants
Insurance Company Limited
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Saraswati Nath and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
11.02.2022
Order No.
10. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for claimants - Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. It is submitted that Respondent No.1-Saraswati Nath died in
the year 2021 and since her LRs are already on record, her
substitution is not required.
3. Present appeal by the insurer is against judgment dated
30.06.2015 of the learned 2nd MACT, ND, Sambalpur in MAC
Case No.121/97 wherein the learned Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.5,72,600/- along with 6% interest per annum
to the claimants from the date of filing of the application i.e.
23.6.97 on account of death of the deceased in the motor
vehicular accident dated 6.5.1997.
4. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant submits
that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. the Trekker bearing
Registration No.OR-02-A-6070 was not having a valid license to
drive and the DL seized in this regard was subsequently found to
be a fake one. It is further submitted that while counting the
multiplier for loss of dependency, the same was taken as 14
instead of 13 where the age of the deceased is 50 years as per the
recording in the post mortem report.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that the contention
regarding fake DL in respect of the driver of the offending
vehicle is not at all correct which has been rightly rejected by the
learned Tribunal. However he agrees that if the age of the
deceased is taken at 50 years as per the recording in the post
mortem report, the multiplier should be 13.
6. Having heard both the parties and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that admittedly the insurer has not adduced
any evidence with regard to their contention about fake driving
license of the driver. It is not the case of the insurer that despite
production of evidence either oral or documentary before the
tribunal it was not considered, but the fact remains that they have
not led any evidence to that effect. As such the finding of the
learned Tribunal that the same is rejected in absence of materials
to substantiate the contention cannot be faulted with.
7. Next coming to the multiplier aspect, the right multiplier is
found to be 13. Consequently, upon calculation, the amount of
compensation is reduced to Rs.5,32,700/- which the Appellant-
Insurance Company is liable to pay.
8. It needs to be mentioned here that the contention put-forth by
the Appellant with regard to waiving of the interest is rejected
outright since nothing is brought on record to reveal on the part of
the Appellant to have taken any steps for early disposal of the
claim application before the learned Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified amount of Rs.5,32,700/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty-
Two Thousand Seven Hundred only) along with interest @6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
i.e.23.6.1997 before the learned Tribunal within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimants, i.e. present Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in
such terms and proportion as directed in the impugned judgement.
10. 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.
11. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid direction.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
