Orissa High Court
Motor Vehicles Act vs Sialata Kalsae And Others on 6 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.753 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).
Divisional Manager, M/s. ... Appellant
United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar
-versus-
Sialata Kalsae and others ... Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. S. Das, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. J. Sahu, Advocate
(Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is an appeal U/S.173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") by the
appellant-insurer challenging the quantum of
compensation as awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2
(R1 & 2) in the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2024
passed in MAC Case No.84 of 2022 by which the
learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balangir (In
short, "the Tribunal") has granted a sum of
Rs.19,47,080/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fourty-Seven
Thousand Eighty) only to the claimants-R1 & 2 together
with interest of 6% per annum w.e.f. 12.09.2022 as
compensation for the death of one Nabakishore Kalsae
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in a motor
vehicular accident.
2. Facts in precise are, on 16.03.2022 around
about 3.00 to 3.30 PM one Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-
05P-3806 (Mixture and Grinding Machine) came being
driven by its driver rash and negligently and dashed the
deceased, who was standing near Manamunda (Deuli)
Railway Bridge Construction Camp resulting in his
death. On this accident, an FIR was lodged vide
Manamunda PS Case No.56 of 2022, which culminated
in submission of charge-sheet against the accused
driver of the offending vehicle for offences
U/Ss.279/304-A of IPC. After the death of the
deceased, his legal representatives-cum-R1 & 2 filed an
application before the learned tribunal U/S.166 of the
Act by impleading the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle, which came to be registered as MAC
Case No.84 of 2022 claiming Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs) as a compensation for the death of their
sole bread earner. According to the claimants-R1 & 2,
the deceased was aged about 25 years old and was a
motor cycle mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month then and they be compensated for the loss of
their sole bread earner.
2.1. In response to the notice of claim, the
owner of offending vehicle-R3 did not participate in the
proceeding and he was set ex-parte by the learned
tribunal. On the other hand, the appellant-insurer
contested the claim by filing written statement denying
all the allegations made in the claim application of R-1
& 2 and inter-alia disputing its liability to indemnify the
owner of the offending vehicle-cum-R-3 for violation of
policy conditions, while admitting valid insurance policy
of the insured with its company at the relevant time of
accident.
2.2 In support of their claim, the claimants-R1
& 2 examined the mother of the deceased and another
independent witness as PWs.1 & 2 and relied upon the
police papers of the accident case under Exts.1 to 10 as
against no evidence whatsoever by the appellant-
insurer.
3. After having gone through the evidence on
record upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment
awarding compensation of Rs.19,47,080/- to the
claimants-R1 & 2 proportionately. Being aggrieved, the
insurer has preferred this appeal on various grounds
inter-alia the quantum of compensation.
4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Ms.
Sudhamayee Das, learned counsel for the appellant by
confining his submission to the quantum of
compensation prays to reduce the compensation on the
ground of wrong assessment of the income of the
deceased and exorbitant payment of consortium to the
claimants.
4.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu,
learned counsel for the claimants-R1 & 2, however,
seriously opposes the submission of the appellant by
inter-alia contending that the income of the deceased
has been rightly assessed by the learned tribunal and,
thereby, the compensation as awarded to the claimants
cannot be reduced. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
claim. None appears for R-3 despite valid service of
notice in this appeal.
5. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, this Court finds
that the main dispute between the parties is with
regard to the quantum of compensation, which is
calculated on the basis of income of the deceased, but
since the appellant-insurer seriously disputes the
assessment of the income of the deceased, this Court
now adverts to the said point of the income of the
deceased. The learned tribunal in his findings under
Issue No.3 has taken the income of the deceased
notionally at Rs.12,150/- per month on the basis of
daily wages for a skilled labourer prevailing at the time
of accident @ Rs.405/- per day, but the learned
tribunal having assessed the income of the deceased as
a skilled labourer which is not supported by any
concrete evidence and the compensation being not a
bounty or largesse, this Court takes the income of the
deceased @ Rs.315/- per day as a unskilled labourer
which was prevailing at the time of accident and,
thereby, the monthly income of the deceased would be
calculated at Rs.9,450/-. Hence, the annual income of
the deceased would come around Rs.1,13,400/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred)
and adding 40% towards future prospects in terms of
the law laid down by the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others;
(2018) 69 OCR (SC) 1, the net annual income of the
deceased would come around Rs.1,58,760/- (Rupees
One Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty).
Since the deceased died as a bachelor and having
parents as dependents, half of the aforesaid amount is
required to be deducted towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased and, therefore, the loss of
dependency of the claimants-R1 per year would come
to Rs.79,380/-. As the deceased was aged about 25
years age, the correct multiplier would be 18 and,
accordingly, the total loss of dependency of claimant-
mother would come around Rs.79,380/- x 18=
Rs.14,28,840/-. In addition, the claimants-R1 & 2 are
also entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- with increase of
10% per every three years under non-pecuniary head
of damages of loss of estate, funeral expenses and
consortium and, thereby, the claimants are also entitled
to Rs.77,000/- towards non-conventional heads in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra). Hence, claimants-R1 & 2 are entitled to
a compensation of Rs.14,28,840/- + Rs.77,000/-=
Rs.15,05,840/-. In addition, the claimants are also
entitled to interest @ 6% per annum with effect from
the date of filing of the claim. The compensation is,
accordingly, modified to the extent of Rs.15,05,840/-
together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f.
12.09.2022.
6. In the result, the claim appeal is allowed in
part on contest, but there is no order as to costs. The
impugned award of compensation is modified to the
extent of Rs.15,05,840/- together with simple interest
@ 6% w.e.f. 12.09.2022 which shall be deposited
before the learned Tribunal within 60 days hence.
However, the father being not the dependent, a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- be paid to the claimant-father-cum-R2
out of the compensation amount and rest of the
amount would be paid to the claimant-mother-cum-R1.
It is made clear that 80% of the claim amount be paid
to the claimants in fixed deposit in any Nationalized
Bank for 5 years and rest of 20% be released
proportionately in favour of the claimants.
It is made clear that the statutory deposit
be refunded back to the appellant-insurer on proof of
deposit of the modified compensation amount before
the tribunal, who shall disburse the same in the manner
as ordered above.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Signature NotDated
Verified
the 6th day of January, 2025/Subhasmita
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 07-Jan-2025 10:50:59
