Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Satyabhama Rout And Another on 28 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1036 of 2017
Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant
Mrs. P. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
Satyabhama Rout and Another .... Respondents
Mr. L. Bhuyan, counsel for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
28.11.2022
Order No.
08. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mrs. P. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the insurer -
Appellant and Mr. L. Bhuyan, learned counsel for claimant -
Respondent No.1.
3. Present appeal by the insurer is against impugned judgment
dated 18th May, 2017 of learned 1st MACT, Keonjhar passed in MAC
No.204 of 2015, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6,27,000/-
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 28th December, 2015 has been granted on
account of death of the deceased Rabindra Kumar Rout @ Rabindra
Rout in the motor vehicular accident dated 12th October, 2015.
4. Mrs. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
determination of compensation by the tribunal is erroneous for the
reason that it has applied higher multiplier ignoring the age of the
deceased as 59 years and secondly, future prospects to the extent of
15% has been applied instead of 10%. Thirdly, 50% of the income is
liable to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.
5. After hearing Mrs. Pattnaik and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that the age of the deceased has been assessed by
the tribunal based on the recording in the post mortem examination
report under Ext.5. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced to dispute
the age of the deceased, except placing reliance to the statement of
P.W.1 to the effect that the deceased was 5 years older than her. Thus,
the contention of Mrs. Pattnaik to reassess the age of the deceased at
59 years against the finding of the tribunal is found without merit and
it is held that determination of age of the deceased as 52 years by the
tribunal is without any fault. Accordingly, applicability of multiplier
'11' is found justified. The next contention regarding deduction of
1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses is
rejected outright since the status of the deceased as a married person is
not disputed and admittedly, the claimant is the wife of the deceased.
6. With regard to addition of 15% towards future prospects, as
done by the tribunal, is not found justified in view of the avocation of
the deceased as a agriculturist and vegetable vendor. Thus the same is
liable to be reduced to 10% in terms of the principles decided in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
Others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, by determining the income afresh
with addition of future prospects to the extent of 10%, without
disturbing other findings, the annual loss of dependency comes to
Rs.52,800/-. Total loss of dependency thus becomes Rs.52,800 x 11 =
Rs.5,80,800/-. Adding Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and
Rs.30,000/- towards general damages, the total compensation amount
is determined at Rs.6,50,800/-, payable along with interest @ 6% per
annum.
7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
insurer - Appellant to deposit the total compensation amount of
Rs.6,50,800/- (six lakhs fifty thousand eight hundred) before the
tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application, i.e. 28th December, 2015, within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant - Respondent No.1 on such terms and proportion to be
decided by the learned tribunal.
8. The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant before
this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the Appellant on
proper application and on production of proof of deposit of the
awarded amount before the tribunal.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
