Orissa High Court
Bijayalaxmi Sahoo And Others vs Shaik Najimulla And Another on 18 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.697 of 2016
Bijayalaxmi Sahoo and Others .... Appellants
Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Shaik Najimulla and Another .... Respondents
Mr. G.P. Dutta, counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
18.4.2023
Order No.
05. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for insurer -
Respondent No.2.
3. Present appeal by the claimant - Appellants is directed against
the impugned judgment dated 14th March, 2016 of learned 3rd MACT,
Cuttack passed in MAC Case No.887 of 2010, wherein compensation
to the tune of Rs.10,04,046/- along with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 4th November,
2010 has been granted on account of death of deceased Brundaban
Chandra Sahoo in the motor vehicular accident.
4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimants submits that
the tribunal while computing loss of dependency has not added the
incentives received by the deceased. He further contends that the
income mentioned in Form 16 certificate, produced under Ext.11, has
not been taken into account to count the annual income.
5. As seen from the impugned judgment the tribunal has counted
the salary particulars stated in the salary slips under Ext.10. The
amount mentioned in Ext.10 remains undisputed and it is the
document produced from the side of the claimants. As seen from the
salary certificates the deceased was serving as Deputy Superintendent
of Policy and drawing salary of Rs.34,228/- in the last month. This
amount of salary is included with special incentive of Rs.3,578/-,
which was deducted by the tribunal. This is the objection of claimants
and according to Mr. Panigrahi the amount mentioned under Ext.11
(Form 16) should be computed towards income of the deceased. The
submission raised on behalf of the claimants is seen without merit
since the amount received towards special incentive is meant for
special operational program as the deceased was a police personal. It
is undisputed that such special incentive was not received on regular
basis but occasionally. Therefore no flaw is seen in the approach of
the tribunal for counting the monthly salary of the deceased as
mentioned in the salary slip under Ext.10. The same is accordingly
confirmed.
6. A further submission is raised that no future prospect was added
to the income of the deceased and no amount towards loss of
consortium was granted. The same is found true on record and adding
such amounts along with consequential interest thereon, the claimants
are found entitled for a further consolidated sum of Rs.8,37,000/-
including consequential interest @ 6% per annum on the same.
7. In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
insurer - Respondent No.2 to deposit a further consolidated sum of
Rs.8,37,000/- (eight lakhs thirty-seven thousand) before the tribunal,
within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall
be disbursed in favour of the claimant - Appellants on such terms and
proportion to be decided by the learned tribunal.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
