Act vs Goura Chandra Naik &
2026 Latest Caselaw 1990 Ori

Orissa High Court

Act vs Goura Chandra Naik & on 6 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   MACA NO.805 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section-173 of M.V.
   Act, 1988).
   The Divisional                ...                 Appellant
   Manager, Oriental
   Insurance Co. Ltd.,
   Sundargarh
                          -versus-

   Goura Chandra Naik &          ...              Respondents
   others

   For Appellant            : Mr. S. Pradhan, Advocate

   For Respondents          : Mr. P.K. Mishra,
                              Advocate(R-1 to 3)
                              None (R-4)


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT(ORAL): 06.03.2026


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal by the insurance company

(hereinafter referred to as "the insurer") against the

impugned judgment dated 21.01.2025 passed by

learned 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar

(hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") in

MAC case No.36/186 of 2017-16 directing the insurer

to pay a sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- together with simple

interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 20.09.2016 till its

actual realization to the claimants-R-1 to 3 for the

death of the deceased Tirthabasi Naik in a motor

vehicular accident.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the present

appeal arises out of the claim preferred by R-1 to 3 for

the accident that took place on 15.06.2016 at about

1PM, when deceased minor son of R-1 & 2 was dashed

by an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.OD-09-E-

2388 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle")

at Dhurpada, Keonjhar resulting in his death. On this

accident, Keonjhar Town PS Case No. 206 of 2016 was

registered which culminated in submission of charge

sheet. The deceased was a minor boy and was reading

in Class-IX. Accordingly, the Respondents approached

the tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short "the Act") for grant of

compensation for the death of the deceased by

impleading the owner and insurer of the offending

vehicle.

3. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC

case No.36/186 of 2017-16), the owner of the

offending vehicle preferred not to contest the claim and

accordingly, was set exparte, but the insurer who was

OP No.2 in the proceeding before the tribunal contested

the claim by filing written statement denying all the

allegations leveled against it and disowning its liability.

3.1. On the interse pleadings between the

parties, the learned tribunal stuck two issues and

allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly,

the claimants examined 2 witnesses vide PW1 and PW2

and proved 13 documents under Ext.1 to Ext. 13 as

against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer.

4. After appreciating the evidence on record

upon hearing the parties, the learned tribunal passed

the impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay

compensation amount indicated supra giving right of

recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being

aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has

preferred this appeal.

5. Heard, Mr. Smarajit Pradhan, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar

Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to R-3 in the appeal

and perused the record, but none appears for R-4

despite valid service of notice.

6. After having considered the rival

submission upon perusal of record, there is no dispute

about the accident occurring due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but the

dispute that is carried in this appeal is as to the

quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants,

however, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was

a minor boy and he was aged about 15 years at the

time of his death and the learned tribunal, however,

computed the compensation towards loss of

dependency of the claimants in paragraph-22 of the

impugned judgment, which reads as under:-

"22. Therefore, in the present case as it reveals from the evidence of the PW.1 that the child was a school going student and was 15 years placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts the notional income is taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum inclusive of future prospect. As the

deceased was 15 years old applying the multiplier "18" in view of the observation in Sarla Verma &. Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),the loss of dependency of income comes to Rs.30,000 X 18 = Rs.5,40,000/-. Besides this, the Petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and filial consortium of both parents as Rs.80,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- each). Thus the total compensation is Rs.6,35,000/-."

7. On scrutiny of the aforesaid computation of

compensation, this Court hardly finds any error

apparent on the finding of the learned tribunal, but the

learned tribunal has in fact granted Rs. 95,000/-

towards general damages by awarding Rs. 40,000/-

each to the parents towards filial consortium, however,

this Court being alived with the principle settled by the

Apex Court in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vrs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and others in Civil

Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 (SLP[C] Nos.

11669-11671/2020) which in fact relied upon the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others;

(2018) 69 OCR (SC) 1 considers it proper to award a

consolidated sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards general

damages under conventional heads of loss of estate,

loss consortium and funeral expenses. Since the

accident in this case has taken place in the year 2016

and thereby, 10 years have elapsed, but there should

be an increase of 10% on this amount for each 3 years

in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi(supra). Accordingly, the general

damages under these heads is quantified at Rs.

91,000/-. Hence, the net compensation amount would

come around Rs. 5,40,000/- + Rs. 91,000/- = Rs.

6,31,000/-. Hence, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay

the modified compensation of Rs. 6,31,000/- together

with simple interest 6% per annum w.e.f 20.09.2016

till its realization to the claimants/respondents,

however, the right of recovery as granted to the insurer

by the learned tribunal having not been challenged in

this appeal remains unaffected and is hereby confirmed

and the appellant is accordingly directed to pay the

compensation amount to the claimants/respondents

first and recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle in accordance with law.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part

on contest against R-1 to R-3, but exparte against R-4,

however, without any costs. Consequently, the

impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated

above and the appellant is entitled to refund back the

statutory deposit together with accrued interest thereon

on production of proof of deposit of the modified

compensation amount within eight weeks hence and in

case deposit of the modified compensation amount by

the appellant, the same shall be disbursed to the

claimants proportionately in terms of the award passed

by the learned tribunal.

(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th day of March, 2026/Priyajit

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA