Saraswati Routray @ vs Susanta Kumar Sahoo
2025 Latest Caselaw 6989 Ori

Orissa High Court

Saraswati Routray @ vs Susanta Kumar Sahoo on 11 April, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             MACA No.1202 of 2017

            In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the
            Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

           Saraswati Routray @
           Rautray & others             ....              Appellants

                                  -versus-

           Susanta Kumar Sahoo
           & another                    ....        Respondents

MACA No.322 of 2018

National Insurance Co.

            Ltd.                   ....             Appellant


                                   -versus-

            Saraswati Routray @
            Routray & others             ....     Respondents


                 For Appellants         : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

Date of hearing : 11.04.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.04.2025

V. Narasingh, J. I.A No.1130 of 2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants that for just adjudication the medical documents filed before the learned Tribunal ought to have been taken into account which ex facie establish that the deceased underwent prolonged treatment in Sparsh Hospital and it would have a direct bearing on the amount of compensation being claimed.

3. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/Respondents in this application for enhancement of compensation.

4. Taking into account the rival contentions since this Court is of the considered view that taking document on record is essential for just adjudication, the I.A is allowed. The documents at Annexure-1 save and except the death certificate is marked as Ext.10 on behalf of the Claimants. Registry to do the needful.

5. I.A is accordingly disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

MACA Nos.1202 of 2017 and 322 of 2018

1. Since both MACAs relate to the award dated 23.09.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.157/2013 (1060/14) arising out of Olatpur P.S. Case No.36 of 2013, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MACA No.1202 of 2017 has been filed by the Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, inter alia, on account of non-consideration of future prospects, medical bills and also claiming interest component should be enhanced from 7.5% to 12% per annum.

Insurance Company has filed MACA No.322 of 2018 assailing the award of compensation, inter alia, on the ground of contributory negligence and non-establishment of the nexus between the injuries and the death admittedly in the absence of post-mortem report and that the quantum thereof being the result of patently arbitrary exercise of power.

3. Motor Accident Claim Case No.157/2013 (1060/14) in the court of learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur was filed by the wife and children claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- because of the death of Ajaya @ Ajay Kumar Routray @ Rautray, while coming on 1.5.2013 in a motor cycle bearing registration number OR-02-BS-8732, was on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration number OR-02-AT-3329.

4. To substantiate their claim, appellant No.1 as the widow of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and one Dusmanta Pradhan was also examined as a witness on behalf of the Claimants as P.W.2.

It is apt to note here that the deceased was initially treated in Sparsh Hospital, thereafter at KIMS Hospital and Kalinga Hospital in different spells and ultimately died on 19.01.2014 while being shifted to Adaspur Hospital. On the ground that the deceased was getting Rs.9,206/- as an Ex-Service Personnel, compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs was claimed. The owner of the offending truck was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1. Since in spite of due service of notice he did not appear, he was set ex parte. The Insurance Company- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its written statement, inter alia, taking a ground that even if it is held that the Claimants are entitled to get compensation, the Opposite Party No.1 who is the owner is responsible to pay.

4-A. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the MAC case is maintainable or not ?

2. Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.OR02-AT-3329 the accident took place ?

3. Whether due to that accident Ajaya @ Ajay Ku. Routray @ Rautray succumbed to the injuries ?

4. Whether the O.Ps or any of the O.Ps is liable to pay the compensation and what would be its extent ?

5. To what other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled to ?

6. To what other relief or reliefs, the petitioners are entitled to ?

4-B. To fortify her stand, the widow- Claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and 9 exhibits were admitted into evidence at the behest of the Claimants. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company.

On analyzing the evidence on record, regarding the issues so framed, learned Tribunal came to the finding regarding accident and quantified the compensation at Rs.12,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 8.7.2013 which is assailed at the instance of both the Claimants as well as the Insurance Company on different counts.

4-C. It is apt to note here that this Court had already allowed the prayer of the Claimants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence, by order of the even date and the medical documents have been admitted into evidence and marked as Ext.10.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Claimants in MACA No.1202 of 2017, Mr. Mishra that since admittedly while quantifying the compensation the amount spent on account of hospitalization was not taken into account the Claimants are entitled to higher compensation as there is no dispute regarding accident and that the same

is on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

It is his further submission that while awarding compensation future prospects has not been taken into account and on the said count also the impugned award is liable to be interfered with.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, opposes the prayer, inter alia, on the ground that the compensation as awarded itself is on the higher side in the absence of post-mortem report which would have indicated conclusively that the death is on account of the accident. As such, the MACA for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected. It is his further submission that bills in Ext.10 should not be taken into account.

7. In MACA No.322 of 2018, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the assessment on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body has been held to be Rs.2,00,000/-.

It is stated that as per the settled position of law in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 compensation on the said heads has to be

quantified at Rs.70,000/- and the award has to be modified accordingly.

It is pertinent to note the said judgment of Pranay Sethi was also reiterated in the case of Sriram G.I Co. vrs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & another 2023 Vol.2 TAC - 713.

It is further submitted that the award of interest is ex facie on the higher side and the same is also liable to be reduced.

8. So far as future prospects are concerned, on a bare perusal of the award it is seen that evidently the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of future prospects which is against the settled law. If 30% of the future prospects is added, loss of income will come to Rs.14,01,131/-.

8-A. Loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court has to be reduced to Rs.70,000/-. Re : Pranay Sethi (supra).

8-B. On a bare perusal of Ext.10 (Medical Bills) it is seen that an amount of Rs.1,06,835/- has been shown as expenses on account of medicine.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. S.R. Pattnaik that since the said

bills were not independently proved the same ought not to be taken into account.

It is trite that while disposing of the claim application strict rules of evidence are not applicable and the proceeding is summary in nature and the legislation is a benevolent one.

8-C. On a bare perusal of the medicine bills it is seen that the same relate to Bed No.C-203. The said bed number is reflected in the discharge summary. As such there is no rationale not to award such amount towards compensation.

It is no longer res integra that while assessing compensation Courts are not bound by the amount claimed. The fixation of the amount is always based on the doctrine of just compensation and in doing so one can break free from the shackles of pleadings of the parties. Rather the impelling grounds are one of equity and awarding compensation which is just and cannot be treated as a wind fall or bonanza.

Hence applying the doctrine of just compensation and the principles as discussed above, taking into account the period the deceased was admitted in the hospital, on a conservative assessment a further sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards expenses incidental to the hospitalization on account of attendant expenses etc.

Hence, the total compensation on account of hospitalization is assessed at Rs.1,06,835/- + Rs.30,000/-

= Rs.1,36,835/-

8-D. The total compensation is thus quantified as under:

Rs.14,01,131/- (Including future prospects) Rs. 70,000/- (loss of consortium, estate, funeral expenses) Rs.1,36,835/- (medical bills and other incidental expenses) Rs.16,07,966/- (rounded off to Rs.16,00,000/-)

9. So far as interest component is concerned, on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, this Court is persuaded to hold that reducing it from 7.5% to 6% would subserve the ends of justice.

10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount of compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal and disburse the same amongst the Claimants proportionately as per the award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Court fees shall be payable by the Claimants as per Rules.

11. Within six weeks of documentary proof evidencing deposit of the modified amount before the

Tribunal being submitted, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper application in MACA No.322 of 2018.

12. Both MACA No.1202 of 2017 at the instance of the Claimants and MACA No.322 of 2018 at the instance of the Insurance Company are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th April, 2025/Pradeep

Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 03-May-2025 14:19:21