Orissa High Court
Manas Manjari Satapathy vs Uday Kumar E.M. And Another on 26 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.419 of 2021And MACA No.255 of 2021
MACA No.419 of 2021
Manas Manjari Satapathy .... Appellant
Mr.K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Uday Kumar E.M. and another .... Respondents
Mr.S.Satapathy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
AND
MACA No.255 of 2021
Divisional Manager (T.P.Claim Cell),
M/s.United India Insurance Company .... Appellant
Limited.
Mr.S.Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
Manas Manjari Satapathy and others .... Respondents
Mr.K.C.Rajaguru Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
26.07.2022
Order No.
7. 1. Heard Mr.K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the claimant and Mr.Satapathy, learned counsel for the Insurer.
2. Both the appeals being directed against the same
judgment are taken up together and disposed of by this common
order.
3. MACA No.419 of 2021 has been preferred by the
claimant praying for enhancement of the compensation amount
and MACA No.255 of 2021 has been preferred by the Insurer
challenging the compensation amount.
4. The challenge in both the appeals is against the
impugned judgment dated 16th January, 2021 passed by the
Member, 5th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khurda in
M.A.C.T. Case No.56 of 2017, wherein compensation to the tune
of Rs.62,42,663/- along with interest @6% per annum has been
granted from the date of filing of the claim application on account
of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 8th
May, 2017.
5. Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel for the Insurer while
challenging the award submits that since the deceased at the time
of accident has contributed for the negligence by coming through
a small cut broken medial of the road divider, composite
negligence on his part should also be fixed. In this regard, he
relies on the findings mentioned by the police in the crime
detailed form.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants
submits that while computing compensation, the Tribunal has
made arithmetical error at row no.vii of the table losing a sum of
Rs.22,000/-.
7. First coming to the challenges made by the Insurer with
regard to contributory negligence, admittedly no evidence has
been adduced from the side of the Insurer. By relying on the
recitals of the crime detail form prepared by the police in course
of investigation such a ground is advanced to fix contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased. This Court in several
orders have already held that without adducing independent
evidence, any fact mentioned in the police report cannot be
accepted itself as proof in the claim proceeding. Therefore, when
the accident and death of the deceased in the accident is admitted,
I am not inclined to accept such argument advanced from the side
of the insurer based on the contentions written in the crime detail
form in absence of any specific evidence lead to that effect.
8. Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel for the Insurer next
challenges the quantum of compensation by submitting that as
per Exhibit-A the deceased was getting gross salary of
Rs.56,404/-, but the Tribunal against the same has accepted the
salary of the deceased at Rs.62,200/- as mentioned in the Exhibit-
10.
9. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the
Tribunal has discussed the entries made in Exhibit-10 as well as
Exhibit-A before accepting the entries made in Exhibit-10 against
the entries of Exhibit-A. On comparison of the copies of
Exhibit10 and Exhibit-A, the difference seen is that Exhibit-10 is
the calculation of salary after fixation of the pay in terms of the
Orissa Revised Scale of Pay, 2017, which was made effective
from 1st January, 2016. Therefore the approach of the Tribunal in
relying Exhibit-10 against the entries of Exhibit-A is not faulted
with and the same is confirmed.
10. It is further seen from the impugned judgment that the
Tribunal has calculated the computation as follows:
SL. Heads of calculation Amount
No.
i Monthly income of the deceased Rs.62,200/-
ii Annual income of the deceased Rs.62,200/-x 12 = Rs.7,46,400/-
iii Deduction towards professional tax per Rs.2500/-
annum
iv Net annual income after deduction of Rs.7,46,400/- - Rs.2500.00 =
professional tax Rs.7,43,900/-
Net annual income after deduction of Rs.7,43,900/- - Rs.24,770/-
Income Tax = Rs.7,19,130/-
v 15% of (iv) above to be added as future Rs.7,19,130/- x 15% =
prospects. 1,07,869/-
vi Addition of 15% as future prospects Rs.7,19,130/- + 1,07,869 =
Rs.8,26,999/-
vii Contribution to family after 1/3rd Rs.8,26,999/--Rs.2,75,666 =
deduction towards personal expenses 5,49,333/-
viii Compensation after application of Rs.5,49,333 x 11 =
multiplier 11 Rs.60,42,663/-
ix Addition of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Rs.60,42,663/- + Rs.15,000/- =
estate Rs.60,57,663/-
x Addition of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral Rs.60,57,663/- + Rs.15,000 =
expenses 60,72,663/-
xi Addition of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of Rs.60,72,663 + Rs.70,000/-=
consortium Rs.61,42,663/-
xii Addition of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss Rs.61,42,663/- + Rs.1,00,000/-
of love, care, guidance and protection of = Rs.62,42,663/-
children
11. As seen from the above, the Tribunal has deducted
income tax to the tune of Rs.24,770/- only. But as per the
prevailing rate during the financial year 2017-2018, the rate of
income tax was 5% above the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and 20%
from Rs.5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-. Considering the permissible
deductions up-to Rs.1,50,000/-, the income tax to the tune of
Rs.24,770/- as calculated by the Tribunal is found appropriate.
The amounts mentioned at row No.'vii' of the table is modified to
Rs.5,51,333/- instead of Rs.5,49,333/-. Thus, the row No. 'viii' is
corrected to Rs.60,64,663/- instead of Rs.60,42,663/-. For row
No. 'ix, x, xi & xii', a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted. Thus,
the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.62,14,663/-.
Accordingly, the compensation amount is modified to the said
extent.
12. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with a
direction to the Insurer i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. To
deposit the total compensation of Rs.62,14,663/-(Sixty two lakhs
fourteen thousand six hundred three) before the Tribunal along
with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application 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.
13. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant in MACA
No.255 of 2021 with accrued interest thereon be refunded to him
on proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the
award amount before the learned Tribunal.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
