Orissa High Court
The Branch Manager vs Bhagyasini Rana And Others on 10 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1231 of 2016
The Branch Manager, Oriental .... Appellant
Insurance Company Limited
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
-versus-
Bhagyasini Rana and others .... Respondents
Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 5
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
10.11.2022
Order No.
07. 1. Heard Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for
the Respondent Nos.2 & 5-claimants.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 30.07.2016 of learned M.A.C.T. (III), Sonepur in M.A.C.
Case No.23/12 of 2011-15, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,25,000/- has been granted along with interest @7% per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.24.11.2011 on account of death of the deceased in
the motor vehicular accident dated 8.7.2009.
3. The main contention raised by Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel
for the Appellant-insurer is to the effect that the deceased himself
was operating the power tiller and therefore, he was negligent for
his own death. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has
computed the compensation on higher side despite the fact that
the deceased was a labourer at the time of accident.
4. Upon hearing Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the claimants
and perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the Tribunal
has come to the finding that Opposite Party No.1, the owner was
driving the power tiller at the time of accident. Mr. Khan presses
the evidence of OPW-1, the owner, to contend that the deceased
was driving the power tiller.
5. Upon perusal of the copy of evidence of OPW-1, as produced
by Mr. Khan, it reveals that the deceased was working as a
labourer under him at the time of accident and operating the
power tiller. But this evidence of OPW-1 is not found believable
for the reason that the Police upon investigation has submitted the
charge-sheet against the owner - O.P. No.1. The evidence of
P.W.1 that the owner was operating the power tiller at the time of
accident is getting support from police report. Thus the evidence
of O.P.-1(owner) to the contrary is not believable. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal has rightly approached to fix the negligence on
the owner and as such, no merit is found to interfere with the
same.
6. With regard to the submissions of the Appellant about quantum
of compensation, it is seen that the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day to make his monthly
income at Rs.9,000/-. In terms of the Notification No.293, dated
28.4.2007 valid at the time of accident, Rs.90/- was prescribed for
skilled labourer and Rs.100/- was for highly skilled labourer. As
such, fixation of Rs.9000/- as monthly income of the deceased by
the Tribunal is found erroneous. Keeping in view the prescribed
rate of minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident, i.e. on
8.7.2009, and completing all formalities on computation
including addition of future prospects, a reduced compensation of
Rs.4,80,000/- along with 6% interest is proposed to the parties in
course of hearing. Mr. Sourav, learned counsel for the claimants
agrees to the same and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to the discretion of the
Court. The compensation amount is accordingly fixed to that
extent.
7. In the result, the Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the reduced compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- (rupees four
lakhs eighty thousand) before the Tribunal along with interest
@6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application,
i.e. 24.11.2011 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.
8. 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.
9. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
