Orissa High Court
Geli Dei And Another vs Bhubaneswar Mohapatra And ... on 10 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1226 of 2015
Geli Dei and another .... Appellants
Mr. B.N. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Bhubaneswar Mohapatra and another .... Respondents
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
10.01.2022
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants as well as Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. The claimants, i.e. the mother and son of the deceased, have
come up in appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation
amount.
4. The learned Tribunal, i.e. 1st M.A.C.T., Nayagarh in MAC
No.63 of 2013 has directed for payment of compensation to the
tune of Rs.6,88,992/- along with interest @7% per annum to the
claimants in his judgment dated 7.8.2015.
5. The case of the claimants is that, the deceased was working as
a loading and unloading labourer in Nayagarh Bus Stand and on
5.6.2013 while he was returning home by walking, the offending
vehicle, i.e., Tata Indigo ECS car bearing Registration No.OR-25-
C-7050 dashed against him causing his death.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the deceased
was admittedly 35 years of old on the date of accident and was
working as a loading and unloading labourer. Learned Tribunal
considering him as a labourer in the agricultural sector has
determined his monthly income @Rs.126/- per day instead of
fixing his wage at Rs.150/- per day applicable for unskilled
labourers in non-agricultural sector. It is further contended that
the learned Tribunal has though granted 30% towards future
prospects, but as per the decision rendered in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for 40% on that
aspect. Besides, no amount has been granted towards loss of
parental/filial consortium.
7. Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company submits in reply that when the evidence of
the claimants is to the effect that the deceased was doing loading
and unloading job of vegetables like potatoes, onions, etc. then no
fault can be found there in the direction of the learned Tribunal
counting the deceased as a labourer in the agricultural sector.
However, in respect of future prospects, he agrees with the
decision rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
8. Having heard both parties and considering the submissions
advanced on behalf of the claimants-Appellants, the contention to
calculate monthly income of the deceased @Rs.150/- per day as
prevailing in the year 2013 is found with substance. Accordingly,
the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,200 x 12
=Rs.50,400/-. Adding further amount towards parental/filial
consortium thereto and without getting into further details of
computation, the insurer-Respondent No.2 is directed to pay
further consolidated amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.
9. Accordingly, the aforesaid consolidated amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) be deposited by Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from
today before the learned Tribunal; where-after the same shall be
disbursed in favour of the claimants is such proportion to be
decided by the Tribunal.
10. The appeal is disposed of.
11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par
with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587,
dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798,
dated 15th April, 2021 and Court's Office Order circulated vide
Memo No.514, dated 7th January, 2022.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
