Orissa High Court
Shantipriya Mahapatra vs Bidyutlata Hota & Anr on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.711 of 2012 & MACA No.776 of 2012
MACA No. 711 of 2012
Shantipriya Mahapatra .... Appellant
Mr. J.K.Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Bidyutlata Hota & Anr. .... Respondents
Ms. S.Gumansingh, Advocate for Respondents
MACA No.776 of 2012
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. .... Appellant
Ms. S.Gumansingh, Advocate
-versus-
Santipriya Mohapatra & Anr. .... Respondents
Mr. J.K.Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
03.04.2023
Order No.
11. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Nayak, learned counsel for the Claimant-Appellants
and Ms.Gumansingh, learned counsel on behalf of Ms.Pami Rath for
the Insurer-Respondents.
3. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated
29th February, 2012 passed by 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Puri in MAC Case No. 121/512 of 1994 of 1991, wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.98,000/- was granted along with
interest @ 7 % per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of
the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor
vehicular accident on 9th April, 1991, are heard together and disposed
of by this common order.
4. MACA No. 711 of 2012 has been filed by the Claimants
praying for enhancement of the compensation amount and MACA No.
776 of 2012 has been filed by the Insurer challenging the impugned
award.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the Insurer that the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No.OR-Y-745 did not
have a valid driving license on the date of accident and he was
possessing a fake license.
6. It is seen that the Insurer did not adduce any evidence before
the Tribunal in support of his contention. Even no such specific
pleading to that effect has been taken by the Insurer. As such, any
such contention raised at this stage questioning competency of the
driver is not entertained.
7. So far as the prayer of the Claimant to enhance the
compensation amount is concerned, it is found that the deceased was
an unmarried boy aged about 18 years at the date of accident. The
Tribunal taking his income at Rs.750/- per month only has taken the
age of his mother to determine the multiplier. This approach of the
Tribunal is found erroneous and disapproved by this Court.
8. In absence of any proof towards income of the deceased, his
notional income is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per second
Schedule. The appropriate multiplier applicable would be eighteen.
Accordingly, the loss of dependency come to Rs.1,89,000/-, with
addition of future prospect to the extent of 40% and deduction of 50%
towards personal expenses. Adding Rs.40,000/- towards general
damages including filial consortium to the mother, the final
compensation amount is determined at Rs.2,29,000/-, payable along
with interest @ 6% per annum.
9. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of and the
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount
of Rs. 2,29,000/- (Two lakhs twenty nine thousand) along with
interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the
claim application within a period of two months from today; where-
after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant on such
terms and proportion to be fixed by the Tribunal.
10. On deposit of the award amount before learned Tribunal and
filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund application
before this Court, the statutory deposit made in MACA No. 776 of
2012 before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be
refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.Das
