Orissa High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Kuni Behera And Others on 7 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.95 of 2020
M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance .... Appellant
Insurance Company Limited
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Kuni Behera and others .... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
07.03.2022
Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel
for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3-claimants.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against award dated
27.11.2019 of the learned 3rd MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC
No.354 of 2010 wherein the learned Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.12,08,963/- along with 7% interest per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the application
i.e. 15.11.2010 on account of death of the deceased in the motor
vehicular accident dated 3.9.2010.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the offending
vehicle, i.e. Truck bearing Registration No.OR-09-C-6731 is not
involved in the accident, but has been implanted to manage the
compensation. To support the same, it is submitted that there is
delay of around two months in lodging the FIR.
4. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 submits in reply that though it is true that FIR was
lodged on 1.11.2010, but the same does not mean to exclude the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and apart
from that, Police has submitted the charge-sheet against the driver
and the owner has admitted the accident before the Tribunal.
5. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned judgment, it reveals that the learned Tribunal has
rightly discarded the contention of the insurer regard to
involvement of the vehicle in the accident keeping in view the
admission of the owner as well as the Police investigation report.
Admittedly the insurer has not adduced any evidence to rebut
such contention of the claimants.
6. Next coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is
submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Tribunal ignoring
the actual rate of minimum wages prevailed at the time of
accident, has counted higher rate to the benefit of the claimants.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that learned
Tribunal accepting vocation of the deceased as a mason has fixed
his income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Admittedly as submitted by
both parties, the prevalent rate of minimum wages for un-skilled
labour was at Rs.90/-, semi-skilled at Rs.103/- and skilled at
Rs.116/- in the year 2010. So taking the rate prescribed for skilled
labourer, the monthly wages comes to Rs.116 x 30 = Rs.3480/-.
7. Keeping this in mind, a reduced compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs) is proposed to the parties in course of
hearing. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants-
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 agrees to the same and Mr. A.A. Khan,
learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to the
discretion of the Court. The compensation amount is accordingly
fixed to that extent. However the rate of interest is reduced to 6%.
8. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
modified amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) along
with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application i.e.15.11.2010 before the learned Tribunal within a
period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be
disbursed to the claimants on such terms and proportion to be
decided by the learned Tribunal.
9. 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.
10. The MACA is disposed of.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
