Orissa High Court
Sr. Divisional Manager vs Maheswar Naik And Others on 9 January, 2024
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.178 of 2023
Sr. Divisional Manager, M/s. New India .... Appellant
Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. G. C. Samantaray, Advocate
-Versus-
Maheswar Naik and Others .... Respondents
Mr. D. Pattnaik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.01.2024
Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.1.
2. No notice has been issued to respondent No.2.
3. Instant appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company
assailing the impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2022
passed in M.A.C Case No.56 of 2017 on the grounds stated
therein.
4. In fact, respondent No.1, namely, mother of the deceased
filed an application Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming the
compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- considering which the
impugned award was passed fixing the amount at Rs.32,33,190/-
payable by the appellant with an interest of 6% per annum from
the date of such application made with a default interest @9%
beyond three months till its realization.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
submits that the deceased was a temporary employee which is
certified by the office of Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar vide
Annexure-A to I.A No. 741 of 2023, hence, therefore, the learned
Tribunal was not correct and justified to add 50% of the actual
income towards future prospects by applying the decision of the
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay
Sethi and others reported in JT 2017(10) SC 450. The contention
is that addition of 40% would have been proper since the
deceased was not in a permanent job and in so far as the
aforesaid decision is concerned, it is applicable to a case where
the deceased was a regular employee.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand
submits the deceased was although in a temporary job but was
likely to be absorbed in a regular post, so therefore, addition of
50% of the actual income while computing his future prospects
cannot be said to be unreasonable, hence, the impugned award
of the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference.
7. Taking into account the fact that the deceased died at a
young age and was working as a Constable with the District
Police at the relevant point of time and was having a long career
ahead with a prospect of being permanently absorbed against a
regular post, the Court, notwithstanding a certificate produced at
present, is of the considered view that addition of 50% of the
actual income while computing the future prospects should not be
disturbed. In any case, with an addition of 40% so claimed by the
appellant Insurance Company, the differential amount would be
hardly within a range of Rs. 2.5 to3 lac. That apart, regard being
had to the fact that the learned Tribunal accepted the salary slip
with the pay structure which was never disputed, the Court is not
inclined to interfere the impugned award.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, it is
directed that the appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount with the learned Tribunal within eight weeks' from today
with the deduction of professional tax, the compensation being
determined at Rs.32,14,064/-. It is further directed that the default
interest at the rate of 9% is dispensed with in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the above amount being on
deposited with the proof furnished, the statutory deposit along
with interest accrued thereon shall thereafter be refunded to the
appellant Insurance Company.
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
