Orissa High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mayadhar Rath And Others on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.84 of 2019
National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr. A. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Mayadhar Rath and others .... Respondents
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
08.09.2022
Order No.
07. 1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance
Company as well as Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2-claimants.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 09.10.2018 of learned 5th M.A.C.T., Khurda in M.A.C.T.
Case No.48 of 2013 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.15,99,950/- has been granted along with interest @7% per
annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.17.05.2013 on account of death of the deceased in
the motor vehicular accident dated 03.02.2013.
3. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel contends on behalf of the
Appellant that first of all the amount of treatment expenses to the
tune of Rs.7,44,000/- added by the Tribunal to the compensation
is erroneous since original bills were not produced by the
claimants.
4. Upon hearing Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that the original bills were lost as per the
claimants and so they produced the duplicate bills. Admittedly the
treatment of the deceased from 3.2.2013 to 21.2.2013 in Kar
Clinic and Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar is not disputed by the
insurer. In support of such expenses incurred for treatment of the
deceased, they have examined one independent witness as P.W.6.
5. On the other hand, it reveals from copy of deposition of P.W.1
that the insurer even did not put any denial suggestion to the same
in their cross to P.W.1 that no such expenses were either incurred
or the original bills have been utilized otherwise to reimburse the
amount. Thus in absence of any material evidence in support of
the contention raised by Mr. Das, the same is not found
acceptable because the treatment of the deceased for such period
in Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar is never disputed.
6. It is next contended that addition of future prospects to the
income of the deceased, who admittedly was a non-earning
person being a student aged about 17 years only is illegal. Here
also Mr. Das fails in his contention in view of the law settled in
the case of Kirti and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166.
7. The notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal to the
tune of Rs.4500/- per month being not questioned, which is
otherwise found reasonable in the circumstances, no reason is
seen to interfere with the award amount granted by the Tribunal.
However, the rate of interest as directed to be paid is reduced to
'6%' from '7%'.
8. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Appellant - Insurance Company to deposit the entire
compensation amount of Rs.15,99,950/- (rupees fifteen lakhs
ninety-nine thousand nine hundred fifty) before the Tribunal
along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 17.05.2013 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 contained in the
direction of the 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 certified copy of the depositions filed by Ms. D.
Mohapatra are kept on record.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
