Divisional Manager vs Sabita Jagadala And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1837 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   MACA No.288 of 2021
            Divisional Manager, M/s.Oriental           ....           Appellant
            Insurance Company Ltd.
                                               Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
                                        -versus-
            Sabita Jagadala and others               ....      Respondents
                           Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                       ORDER

15.03.2022 Order No.

04. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company as well as Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants.

2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against award dated 9.3.2021 of the learned 1st MACT, Balangir in MAC Case No.76 of 2015 wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.8,14,181/- along with 7% interest per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the application i.e. 29.06.2015 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 19.03.2015.

3. The claimants have also filed their cross objection praying for enhancement of compensation.

4. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased, who was a pension holder. The death of the deceased in the alleged

motor vehicular accident and validity of the insurance policy remains undisputed. The only challenge is with regard to quantum. When the Insurance Company seeks reduction of the same, the claimants through the cross-objection has prayed for enhancement of the same.

5. As seen from the impugned judgment, the monthly income of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.19,153/- which consists of two parts, i.e. pension of Rs.17,153/- and Rs.2,000/- as income from agricultural source. The learned Tribunal in order to decide the agricultural income has considered the extent lands owned by the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in absence of any documentary proof towards income from agricultural land and despite the evidence to the effect that the lands are non- irrigated, the learned Tribunal has taken Rs.2000/- as income of the deceased from agricultural lands. Conversely, it is submitted on behalf of the claimants that the learned Tribunal while determining the agricultural income has excluded the extent of land measuring Ac.2.015 decimals.

7. The submissions of both parties do not appear correct upon perusal of the impugned judgment. It reveals that the learned Tribunal by considering the total extent of land mentioned in the ROR exhibited under Exts.14, 14/1 and 14/2 has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- from those agricultural lands per month. The learned Tribunal has also considered the fact that the lands are not irrigated lands. Therefore no fault is seen in the

approach of the learned Tribunal in determining such income from agricultural source.

8. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the children of the deceased being major and married on the date of death of the deceased are not liable to be treated as dependants and the parental consortium granted in their favour should be deducted from the amount of compensation.

9. These submissions of the Appellant have no merit in view of the principles decided by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, 1987 ACJ 561, Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique, AIR 1989 SC 1589 and Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and others, 2020 (1) T.A.C. 675 (S.C.).

10. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the children of the deceased are entitled for compensation as dependants and further has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenditure. The compensation towards loss of spousal consortium in favour of claimant no.1 and parental consortium in favour of claimant Nos.2, 3 & 4 to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each as granted by the learned Tribunal can no way be said as illegal or

erroneous in view of the principle decided in the decisions referred above.

11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months. Upon deposit of the same 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.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik