Orissa High Court
Pramila Jena And Others vs The Officer-In-Charge on 3 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1172 of 2016 & MACA No.23 of 2017
MACA No.1172 of 2016
Pramila Jena and others .... Appellants
Mr.K.Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
The Officer-in-Charge, Atomic
Minerals, Directorate for Chemical
Laboratory, Eastern Region,
Khasmahal, Tatanagar, Jamshedpur. .... Respondent
Mr.M.K.Pati, CGC
AND
MACA No.23 of 2017
The Officer-in-Charge, Atomic
Minerals, Directorate for Chemical
Laboratory, Eastern Region,
Khasmahal, Tatanagar, Jamshedpur. .... Appellant
Mr.A.K.Mohanty, CGC
-versus-
Pramila Jena and others .... Respondents
Mr.K.Panigrahi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
3.5.2023
Order No.
06. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the claimants
and Mr. Mohanty along with Mr.Pati, learned C.G.C. for the
owner i.e. O.I.C., Atomic Minerals.
3. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated
29th July, 2016 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge-
cum-Vth M.A.C.T., Rourkela, in M.A.C.Case No.228 of 2007,
wherein compensation to tune of Rs.8.32.000/- along with interest
@6% per annum has been granted from the date of filing of the
claim application on account of death of the deceased in the
motor vehicular accident dated 5th April, 2006.
4. MACA No.1172 of 2016 has been filed by the
claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount and
MACA No.23 of 2017 has been filed by the Owner challenging
the award.
5. The offending vehicle is Jeep bearing Registration No.
JH-05-G-8236 belonging to the Officer-in-Charge, Atomic
Minerals, Directorate for Chemical Laboratory, Eastern Region,
Jamshedpur. The accident took place on 5th April, 2006 when the
deceased was going in his motorcycle near Kutra bazar in the
district of Sundargarh. It was a front collision. As per the
challenge advanced by the Owner, the driver of the jeep was not
negligent but the deceased was completely negligent for causing
the accident.
6. Several witnesses were examined from both sides.
P.W.3 is an independent eye-witness examined from the side of
the claimants and O.P.W.2 is the driver of the offending Jeep and
O.P.W.3 is the occupant of said offending jeep. An analysis of
evidences adduced by P.W.3 on one hand and O.P.W.2 & 3 on
the other side reveals probability of truthfulness in favour of
statements of P.W.3, since independent circumstances are found
corroborating to his evidence. Such circumstances include the
fact that front right tyre of the offending jeep burst at the time of
accident leading to fall of offending jeep into the adjacent filed
and capsize. The statements of O.P.Ws.2 & 3 that the tyre burst
after dashing of the motorcycle to the jeep is not found believable
as the same is very uncommon. The second important aspect is
that, the police upon completion of investigation has submitted
charge-sheet against accused driver of the jeep (O.P.W.2) finding
him negligent for commission of offences under Sections
279/304(A) of the I.P.C. As such, the contentions raised by
learned C.G.C. to refute negligence on the part of the driver of
offending jeep is rejected. At the same time the finding of the
learned Tribunal fixing negligence on accused driver of the
offending jeep is confirmed.
7. The claimants have prayed for enhancement of the
compensation amount mainly on the ground that appropriate
multiplier has not been applied to determine the loss of
dependency. The deceased was serving as a police constable and
no dispute is there with regard to his income and age. He was
unmarried and aged bout 24 years on the date of accident. But the
Tribunal has applied multiplier by taking the age of his parents
instead of his own age. This approach of the Tribunal is against
the settled proposition.
8. In the instant case, appropriate multiplier would be 18
in terms of the decisions rendered in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)16
SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. He being
an unmarried person, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted
towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency
is determined at Rs.12,96,000/- (with addition of future prospects
to the extent of 50%). Adding Rs.25,000/- towards filial
consortium to the mother since father has expired in the
meantime, and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses, total compensation is determined at Rs.13,51,000/-
(Thirteen lakhs fifty one thousand), payable along with interest
@6% per annum.
9. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with a
direction to the Owner (Appellant in MACA No.23 of 2017) to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.13,51,000/-(Thirteen
lakhs fifty one thousand) along with interest @6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application 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.
10. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant in MACA
No.23 of 2017 along 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.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
CHITTA RANJAN
BISWAL
C.R.Biswal
Digitally signed by
Date: 2023.05.04
17:18:05 +05'30'
