Parsuram Nayak And Another vs D.G. Of Police S.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2840 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   MACA No.974 of 2019

            Parsuram Nayak and another                 ....        Appellants
                                                 Mr.B.N.Samantray, Advocate

                                         -versus-


            D.G. of Police S.P. and another            ....        Respondents
                                                       Mr.P.Bharadwaj, ASC

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                       ORDER

05.04.2023 Order No.

7. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr.Samantray, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Bharadwaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 13th December, 2019 of the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kendrapara in M.A.C. Case No.106 of 2016, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 6th May, 2016.

4. The claimants have come up for enhancement of the compensation amount. It is seen that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month against the

contention of the claimants for Rs.8,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 49 years and earning Rs.8,000/- per month as salary by working as a Nozzle man at Baladevjew Petrol Pump, Marsaghai. In this regard, they have exhibited the salary certificate under Ext.12 and adduced evidence of P.W.4, the co-employee. But the Tribunal discarded such evidence adduced by the claimants on the ground that the owner of the petrol pump was not examined. This approach of the Tribunal is found erroneous as against the approved principles of evidence.

5. It is seen that no material to rebut such evidence produced from the side of the claimants has been brought on record. Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is set aside. It is held that the deceased had income of Rs.8,000/- per month as stated by P.W.4 and depicted in Ext.12. Adding future prospects to the extent of 30% on the same, the annual loss of dependency is determined at Rs.83,200/- with deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. By applying multiplier 13, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,81,600/-. Adding general damages of Rs.1,10,000/- thereto including loss of parental consortium to both the sons, the final compensation is determined at Rs.11,91,600/-, payable along with interest @6% per annum.

7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-State Authorities to deposit modified compensation amount of Rs.11,91,600/-(Eleven lakhs ninety one thousand six hundred) before the Tribunal along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 24th November, 2016, subject to deduction/adjustment of such

amount already received by the claimants as per the direction of the Tribunal, within a period of four 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. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

C.R.Biswal