Orissa High Court
Ajeet Gochhayat & vs Kamalesh Mohanta & on 13 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.547 of 2020
Ajeet Gochhayat &
.... Appellants
Another
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Kamalesh Mohanta &
Another .... Respondents
Mr.P.K. Behera, Adv. for Resp. No.1
Mr. R.R. Mohanty, Adv. for Resp. No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 13.01.2025
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-
claimants challenging the impugned judgment
dtd.18.02.2020 so passed by the learned 4th M.A.C.T.,
Mayurbhanj at Baripada in M.A.C Case No.59 of 2016.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that Appellant No.1 suffered severe injury due
to the motor accident caused on 09.12.2015.
4.1. It is contended that even though necessary oral and
documentary evidence were placed showing that the
injured was doing grocery and stationery business and
document was also filed showing the disability of the
// 2 //
injured appellant No.1 at 80% permanent, but the
Tribunal without assessing the monthly income of the
injured and instead of taking the disability of 80%
permanent as loss of earning capacity at 100%, only
allowed consolidated compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
along with interest @ 7 % per annum payable from the
date of application till its realization.
4.2. It is contended that since evidence was laid showing
that the injured was doing grocery business, the Tribunal
should have assessed the monthly income of the injured
and accordingly the compensation should have been
assessed following the decision in the case of Smt.
Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2)
T.A.C.677 (S.C).
4.3. It is also contended that since disability of the
injured was found at 80% permanent, loss of earning
capacity should have been taken at 100%. But the
Tribunal committed gross wrong by awarding
consolidated compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with
interest @ 7 % per annum.
4.4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that if
the Tribunal basing on the available materials could not
arrive at the monthly income of the injured, the same
should have been taken at Rs.6,000/- per month i.e. the
minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled labour @
// 3 //
Rs.200/- per day at the relevant point of time. Taking
into account the disability at 80% permanent, which
should have been taken as loss of earning capacity at
100%, the claimants-appellants would have been entitled
to get compensation amount of Rs.12,60,000/- along with
interest and exhibited.
5.1. It is also contended that though documents were
filed before the Tribunal showing expenses to the tune of
Rs.2,44,973/- being made toward medical bills, but the
same was also not taken into consideration by the
Tribunal, while awarding compensation at Rs.5,00,000/-
consolidated. It is also contended that taking into
account the disability of the appellant at 80% permanent,
compensation should have been awarded towards future
treatment and future care. Disability certificate exhibited
vide Ext.10 and the photograph of the appellant No.1/
injured so produced before this Court, be kept in record.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the impugned
award has been passed without proper appreciation of the
materials placed by the injured-appellant, the same needs
interference of this Court.
However, in course of hearing, learned counsel for
the appellants contended that Claimants-Appellants will
be fully satisfied if further compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- consolidated.
// 4 //
6. Mr. R.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2-Company on the other hand contended
that the award so passed has already been satisfied and
the claimants-Appellant No.1 has been paid with a sum of
Rs.6,62,342/-.
6.1. It is contended that since the award so passed by
the Tribunal has already been satisfied, the
appellant/claimants is not entitled to get any further
compensation.
6.2. It is also contended that even if the income of the
injured should have been taken at Rs.6,000/- i.e. the
minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled worker, the
total compensation would have been assessed at
Rs.10,08,000/-.
6.3. It is also contended that since the disability of the
injured was found at 80% permanent, the same cannot be
taken as loss of earning capacity at 100%. However,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 leave the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants to award further compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- consolidated to the discretion of this
Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that claiming compensation for the injury sustained
// 5 //
in the motor accident on 09.12.2015, injured appellant
No.1 along with appellant No.2 filed MAC No.59 of 2016
before the learned Tribunal.
7.1. As found the Tribunal without proper appreciation
of the materials placed before it and without assessing
the monthly income of the injured and so also the
disability certificate exhibited vide Ext.10, allowed
consolidated compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
along with interest @ 7 % per annum. Since as found
evidence was laid by the injured appellant No.1 that he
was doing grocery and stationery business, as per the
considered view of this Court, income of the injured-
appellant No.1 should have been assessed as per the
minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled worker at the
relevant point of time.
7.2. Since it is not disputed in the bar that minimum
wages of an un skilled worker at relevant point of time
was at Rs.200/- per day, taking the same as the income
of the injured appellant No.1, the monthly income of the
appellant No.1 should have been assessed at Rs.6,000/-
per month. Taking into account the age of the injured
and the disability at 80% permanent, the same should
also have been taken as loss of earning capacity at 100%.
However, considering the fact that the claim is of the year
2016 and the award has already been satisfied to the
tune of Rs.6,62,342/-, this Court considering the
// 6 //
submissions made is inclined to award further
consolidated compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.
7.3. While holding so, this Court directs Respondent
No.2-Company to deposit compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- consolidated, before the Tribunal within a
period of eight (8) weeks hence. On such deposit of the
amount, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- be kept in a fixed
deposit for a period of six (6) years. Balance amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- be disbursed in favour of appellant No.1 on
proper identification.
7.4. However, it is observed that if the amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- consolidated is not deposited within the
aforesaid time period, the same shall carry interest @
6% per annum, for the period starting from expiry of
the period of eight weeks till the amount is so
deposited.
8. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
