Orissa High Court
Manager (Legal) vs Prafull Kumar Sahoo & Ors on 17 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1060 of 2024
Manager (Legal), T.P. Cell M/s. ..... Appellant
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
Cuttack
-versus-
Prafull Kumar Sahoo & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 3)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.03.2025
Order No.02
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company and Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Claimants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Company
challenging Judgment dtd.12.09.2024 so passed by the learned
District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No. 104
of 2022. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal assessed the
compensation at Rs.76,37,500/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum payable from the date of filing of the claim application till its
realization.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant contended that while taking the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.55,899/-, allowance received by the deceased to the
extent of Rs.1115/- was added the monthly income, which runs
contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kalpanaraj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.
Reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764. It is accordingly contended that if
the Tribunal would have not added the allowances received by the
deceased to her monthly income, the compensation amount would
have been assessed at a lesser side.
4.1. It is also contended that professional tax was also not deducted
from the monthly income so assessed by the Tribunal. It is also
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle since was having
Light Motor Vehicle licence, the same amounts to violation of the
policy condition as the driver was driving a Heavy Motor Vehicle
and accordingly, right of recovery should have been allowed.
4.2. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Company contended that had the Tribunal properly
appreciated the aforesaid contention so raised by the Appellant, the
compensation amount so awarded should have been on the lower
side. It is accordingly contended that the impugned award needs
interference of this Court.
5. Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with regard to violation of policy condition
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle since was having
LMV licence, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in
the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rambha Devi & Ors., the said issue is no more res integra and the
driver of the offending vehicle was to be treated, having the valid
D.L. as on the date of accident.
5.1. Even though learned counsel appearing for the Claimants-
Respondents supported the impugned Judgment and contended that
the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation, but in course of
hearing contended that the Claimants-Respondents will have no
grievance, if this Court will reduce the compensation amount to
Rs.66,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from
the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Company while
leaving the aforesaid proposition made by the learned counsel for
the Claimants-Respondents to the discretion of this Court,
contended that right of recovery be allowed as against Owner-
Respondent No.4.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while interfering with
the impugned Judgment, is inclined to held the Claimants-
Respondents entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.66,00,000/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of
application till its realization. While holding so, this Court directs
the Appellant-Company to deposit the compensation amount of
Rs.66,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% interest per annum payable
from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization
before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal
is directed to award compensation in favour of Claimant-
Respondent No. 3 to the extent of 50% of the deposited amount and
the balance compensation amount be disbursed in favour of
Claimant-Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in equal share. The entire share as
due to Respondent No. 3 be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 5
(five) years in any nationalized bank. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
however be released with ½ of their share and the rest ½ be kept in a
fixed deposit also for a period of five (5) years.
7.1. However, it is observed that if the amount as directed will not
be deposited by the Appellant-Company within the aforesaid time
period of eight (8) weeks, the compensation amount of
Rs.66,00,000/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period
starting from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till its
payment.
7.2. On such deposit of the amount, the Appellant-Company shall be
permitted to take back the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest if any from the Registry on proper identification.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
