Orissa High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Muralidhar Behera And Others on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.656 of 2011
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr.P.Sinha, Advocate
-versus-
Muralidhar Behera and others .... Respondents
Mr.J.R.Dash, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-7
Mr.M.C.Nayak, Advocate for Respondent No.10
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
12.4.2023
Order No.
12. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellant i.e.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr.Dash, learned counsel for
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 7 as well as Mr.Nayak, learned
counsel for Respondent No.10 i.e. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd.
3. Present appeal by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is
directed against the judgment dated 21st May, 2011 of the Third
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Puri in M.A.C.No.814 of 1991,
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.4,59,730/- 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 23rd July, 1991.
4. The accident is the result of head on collision between
the offending bus bearing registration No.OAU 777 and the
offending truck bearing registration No.DIG 943. The deceased
was a passenger of the offending bus.
5. Mr.Sinha submits on behalf of the Appellant that the
driver of the truck was not negligent for the accident and the
police have submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the
bus. Therefore he prays to exonerate the present Appellant who is
the Insurer of the truck.
6. It is seen that the Tribunal, based on the evidence of the
eyewitnesses viz. P.Ws.1 & 2, have held that the drivers of both
the offending vehicles were equally negligent for the cause of
accident. The Tribunal further directed that the compensation
amount shall be paid jointly and severally by both the Insurance
Companies.
7. It remains undisputed that the driver of the truck died
on the spot due to the accident. Perusal of the copies of the
charge-sheet reveals that since the driver of the truck died in the
accident, the driver of the bus was only charge-sheeted for
commission of offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the
I.P.C. to face the criminal prosecution. Therefore what is
contended by Mr.Sinha that driver of the truck was not negligent
as per the police investigation report is not found correct. For the
reasons stated by the Tribunal, both drivers of the offending
vehicles are held equally negligent for causing the accident.
8. Since the validity of insurance policy in respect of both
the offending vehicles is not disputed, it is held that both the
Insurance Companies are liable to pay the compensation amount
in equal share.
9. Now coming to the question of quantification of
compensation amount, it is seen that the Tribunal by taking the
income of the deceased at Rs.4,132/- per month has determined
the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,29,728/-. The
procedure followed by the Tribunal in determining the loss of
dependency is found erroneous and not in consonance with
approved principles. As such, the same is set aside and a fresh
computation is drawn as follows:-
The deceased was serving as a Tradesman under C
category in Atomic Mineral Division at Mohulid Camp. Ext.8 &
8/a are his monthly salary slips. Copies of the same reveal that
the deceased was getting gross remuneration of Rs.1,996/- per
month. As such, the same is accepted as his monthly income.
So far as age of the deceased is concerned, as per the
evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3, he had five more years to retire from
service. Admittedly, no copy of service record in proof of age of
the deceased was produced on record. Thus, keeping in view the
statements of the witnesses, his age is considered between 51 to
55 years and as such, multiplier 11 is found applicable. With
addition of future prospects to the extent of 15%, the income is
enhanced to Rs.2,295/- per month. Deducting 1/5th therefrom
towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency comes
to Rs.22,035/- and total loss of dependency becomes
Rs.2,42,394/-. Adding Rs.1,00,000/- thereto towards loss of
consortium to the wife and minor children and keeping in view
the prevalent value of money on the date of accident i.e. on 23rd
July, 1991, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as directed by the
Tribunal is added towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Thus, the total compensation is determined at Rs.3,62,394/-,
payable along with interest @6% per annum.
10. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction
to both the Insurance Companies i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit the modified
compensation amount of Rs.3,62,394/- along with interest @6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in
equal share 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 to be fixed by the Tribunal.
11. It needs to be mentioned that as per the submissions
made at the Bar, the compensation amount has not yet been
deposited and received by the claimants.
12. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with
accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application
and on production of proof of deposit of the award amount before
the learned Tribunal.
13. Copies of evidences and exhibits as produced by
Mr.Sinha in course of hearing are kept on record.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
