Ayub Hial And Others vs Arif Meman And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 14 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   MACA No.1035 of 2016

            Ayub Hial and others                         ....          Appellants
                                                    Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate
                                         -versus-
            Arif Meman and another                ....       Respondents
                           Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                       ORDER

02.01.2023 Order No.

10. 1. Heard Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Appellants-

claimants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-ICIC Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

2. Present appeal by the Appellants-claimants is directed against the judgment dated 19.4.2016 of the learned 1st MACT, Nabarangpur in M.A.C. No.28 of 2015, wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- along with simple interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 16.9.2015 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 19.7.2015.

3. Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that though the income of the deceased was Rs.13,800/- per month, but the learned Tribunal erroneously fixed it at Rs.7,000/-

and further forgot to add future prospects to the same. Learned Tribunal also did not grant any amount towards filial consortium to the parents.

4. Upon hearing Mr. Dutta and perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the Tribunal, against the claim of the Appellants, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month on the ground that they have failed to produce any substantial proof on record to the income of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was serving as a Secretary of an N.G.O, namely, SAPATHA INDIA, Nabarangpur. P.W.3 is stated to be the Secretary of the said N.G.O. and Ext.15 is the alleged salary certificate, which has been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal.

5. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 as produced by Mr. Pattnaik in course of hearing, I completely agree with the conclusion of the learned Tribunal. It is for the reason that neither any document with regard to existence of the N.G.O. nor any register showing annual turnover of the N.G.O. nor it's field of business has been produced by the said P.W.3. The authenticity of the N.G.O. and its field work is also not described by P.W.3 to inspire any credibility to his evidence. Ext.15, the alleged salary certificate appears to be a certificate issued by said P.W.3. Therefore, in absence of such details with regard to authentication of the N.G.O. and P.W.3 as its secretary, the assessment of learned Tribunal, done by guess work, to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month at a place like Nabarangpur is confirmed.

6. As per the principles rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects to the extent of 40% is to be added to the income of the deceased since he was 25 years on the date of accident.

7. Accordingly, computing the loss of dependency with addition of 40% to the income towards future prospects, the same is determined at Rs.11,68,400/-. Adding Rs.1,10,000/- towards filial consortium and general damages, the total compensation amount is fixed at Rs.12,78,400/-.

8. At this stage, Mr. Pattnaik submits that the claimants have not yet received the compensation amount in terms of the direction of the learned Tribunal.

9. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer-Respondent No.2 to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.12,78,400/- (rupees twelve lakhs seventy-eight thousand four hundred) along with interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application within a period of two months from today, where-after the same shall be disbursed to the claimants on such terms and proportion to be decided by the learned Tribunal.

10. It is made clear that learned Tribunal is to verify the record and in case it is found that the claimants have already received the amount in terms of its direction, the same shall be adjusted from the compensation amount as directed above.

11. The copies of the deposition of P.W.3 and Ext.15 are kept on record.

12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik