Orissa High Court
Rajiba Dalua And Others vs Samir Kumar Pradhan And Another on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.873 of 2015
Rajiba Dalua and others .... Appellants
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Samir Kumar Pradhan and another .... Respondents
Mr. B.C.Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
11.10.2022
Order No.
07. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants as well as Mr. B.C. Singh, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned
judgment dated 15.05.2015 of the learned 2nd MACT, Cuttack in
Misc. Case No.31 of 2002, wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.5,33,000/- along with interest @7% per annum to the
claimants from the date of filing of the claim application
i.e.25.1.2002 has been granted on account of death of the
deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 3.11.2001.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants
submits that learned Tribunal has failed to add future prospects to
the income of the deceased and no amount was granted towards
loss of consortium. It is further stated that instead of multiplier
'18', the Tribunal has applied multiplier '17' erroneously.
4. Upon hearing Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-
insurer and perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the
Tribunal has computed the compensation amount by assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. While doing so,
the learned Tribunal applied multiplier '17' and added
Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection. However, it is found
that no amount towards future prospects has been added.
5. The claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation
amount. Admittedly, no challenge has been advanced from the
side of insurer against the compensation amount. Thus the finding
of the learned Tribunal regarding income of the deceased at
Rs.3000/- is confirmed. In terms of the decision rendered in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others,(2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects to the extent
of 40% is liable to be added. Doing so, the annual income comes
to Rs.50,400/-.
6. So far as the multiplier is concerned, admittedly the age of the
deceased was taken as '30' years by the Tribunal based on the
post mortem examination report. The age of the deceased so
counted by the Tribunal is not disputed by the insurer. As per the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, approved by the
constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra), the applicable multiplier would be '18' if the age is taken
as 30 years. Accordingly, the multiplier is modified as '18'
against '17' as taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, total loss of
dependency, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, is
determined at Rs.6,04,800/-. Further adding Rs.40,000/- each to
the Claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are the son and husband of the
deceased, towards parental and spousal consortium, and further
Rs.30,000/- towards general damages, the total compensation is
determined at Rs.7,14,800/-, rounded to Rs.7,15,000/-.
7. At this stage, it is submitted that the entire compensation
amount as per direction of the Tribunal has already been
disbursed in favour of the claimants.
8. Keeping in view the same, the differential amount found is
Rs.1.82.000/-. Calculating interest @6% per annum thereon from
the date of judgment, the insurer is found liable to pay a further
consolidated amount of Rs.2,60,000/-.
9. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to
Respondent No.2-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay a further
consolidated amount of Rs.2,60,000/- (rupees two lakhs sixty
thousand) to the claimants by depositing the same before the
Tribunal within a period of two months from today, which shall
be disbursed to the claimants on such terms and proportion to be
decided by the learned Tribunal.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
