Orissa High Court
Urmila Panda And Others vs Pramod Kumar Prusty And Another on 31 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.764 of 2018
Urmila Panda and others .... Appellants
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Pramod Kumar Prusty and another .... Respondents
Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
31.01.2023
Order No.
04. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants as well as Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company.
2. Present appeal by the Appellants-claimants is directed against
the judgment dated 24.4.2018 of learned 1st M.A.C.T.,
Jagatsinghpur in M.A.C. Case No.362 of 2011, wherein learned
Tribunal has dismissed the claim application.
3. Mr. Mishra submits on behalf the Appellants-claimants that
learned Tribunal has illegally refused to grant any compensation
for the mere discrepancy in the registration number of the
offending vehicle in the body of the FIR and the charge-sheet.
4. It is seen that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the
claimants and amongst them P.W.2 is the eye-witness to the
occurrence. According to the contents of FIR under Ext.1, the
registration number of the offending motorcycle is OR-05-AH-
9040. But the Police upon completion of investigation has
submitted charge-sheet stating that the motorcycle bearing
Registration No.OR-05-AG-6575 is involved in the accident to
cause injuries to the deceased resulting his death and the name of
the accused driver is Baikunthanath Nanda. The submission of
charge-sheet mentioning about the offending motor-cycle is not
disputed by the Insurance Company, though Mr. Khan supports
the findings of learned Tribunal in his submission.
5. P.W.2, who is an eye-witness, has stated about involvement of
motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-05-AG-6575 in the
accident. The evidence of P.W.1 is thus corroborated from the
evidence of the eye-witness and the contents of Police charge-
sheet. The most significant part of the case is that, the owner of
motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-05-AG-6575 has
admitted the fact of accident and involvement of his motorcycle
in the accident, causing injuries to the deceased. Therefore, what
is mentioned in the body of the FIR would not stand as material
contradiction in accepting the case of the claimants, particularly
when the informant was not an eye-witness to the accident.
Accordingly, the finding of learned Tribunal in this regard is set
aside.
6. It is held that the motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-05-
AG-6575 is involved in the accident and it's driver namely,
Baikunthanath Nanda is responsible for the negligence to cause
the accident.
7. Though this Court is normally in favour of remanding back the
matter in such situations, but here keeping in view the date of
accident, which is relating to the year 2011, I am not in favour of
remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal, rather to
decide the case finally by answering the other issues here, since
the evidence has already been adduced on record. The parties
present also request for the same.
8. As per the claimants, the deceased was a Welder having
monthly income of Rs.8000/-. He was aged about 62 years as per
the post mortem report. However, no material was produced
except the statement of P.W.1, the daughter to reveal the
employment of the deceased as a Welder. Therefore, keeping in
view the prescribed wage rate prevalent on the date of accident
and taking the deceased as a skilled labourer, his monthly income
is fixed at Rs.35,000/-, i.e. Rs.116/- per day. His age, as
mentioned in the post mortem report, is fixed at 62 years and so
multiplier '7' is found applicable. Thus the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.2,20,500/- after deducting 1/4th towards
personal expenses. Adding Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of
consortium to the wife and three daughters, keeping in view the
date of accident, and further adding Rs.30,000/- towards general
damages, the claimants are found entitled to get Rs.3,70,500/- as
compensation, payable along with interest @6% per annum.
9. In the result, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.3,70,500/- (rupees three lakhs seventy
thousand five hundred) before the Tribunal along with interest
@6% per annum 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 claimants on such terms and
proportion to be fixed by the Tribunal.
10. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
11. The copies of the depositions and exhibits as produced by Mr.
P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants in
course of hearing are kept on record.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
