Appeal against Motor Accident Tribunal award. Court held 50% addition for future prospects illegal for a 37-year-old self-employed deceased. Default interest rate corrected to 6%. Award modified Rs.6,17,000.
Award modified to Rs.6,17,000 with 6% interest payable within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
MACA No.1354 of 2015
From an award dated 24.09.2015, passed by the learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar, in M.A.C. Case No.133 of 2011.
Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by Authorized Officer, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar. …. Appellant Versus Rebati Maharana and others. …. Respondents For Appellant … Mr. Mahitosh Sinha, Mr. P. Sinha, Mr. P.R. Sinha & Mr. P. K. Mahali, Advocates For Respondent … Mr. P. Jena, Advocate. nos.1 to 5.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing and judgment : 11.01.2019
Dr. A.K.Rath, J Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award dated
24.9.2015, passed by the learned 1st Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Keonjhar, in M.A.C. Case No.133 of 2011, the insurer has filed this appeal.
2. For the death of one Makardhwaj @ Makiram Maharana
in a motor vehicular accident, the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 5
2
filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation before the learned Tribunal. The case of the claimants was that on 05.03.2011, Makardhwaj and others were returning in a Tata-407 Turbo Truck bearing registration No.OR-099725 after selling their aluminium utensils at Patilo Jagar festival. Near Kuajharan ghati, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place, as a result of which Makardhwaj succumbed to injuries. The son of the deceased lodged an F.I.R., whereafter Harichandanpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2011 was registered. After completion of investigation the police had submitted charge-sheet against the accused driver for the offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A I.P.C. The Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body.
3. The owner of the vehicle was set as ex parte. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the insurer-opposite party no.2 entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the liability. The specific case of the opposite party no.2 was that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time the accident. The offending vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle. The deceased was a passenger in the said vehicle and as such the insurer is exonerated from its liability.
3
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck two issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined two witnesses on their behalf and six documents had been exhibited on their behalf. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party no.2.
5. Learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the deceased died. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the insurer, Held so, it directed the insurer to pay an amount of Rs.6,57,500/along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 04.05.2011. It was further directed that in the event the award amount is not deposited within a month, the award amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till payment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased
was a passenger in a goods vehicle and as such, the insurer is exonerated from its liability. He further submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal that deceased was the owner of the goods carriage vehicle is perverse. The deceased was a self employed person. Learned Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in adding 50% to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects. He places reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of
4
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. ,
(2018) 69 OCR (SC) 1.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that deceased was the owner of goods. He was travelling in the vehicle to sell the goods. He was self-employed. The award amount is just and proper.
8. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Tribunal came to hold that deceased was the owner of the goods. There is no perversity in the said finding.
9. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the apex Court held :
10. Admittedly, the deceased was 37 years. In view of the above, learned Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in adding 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal also fell in patent error in law in awarding default
5
interest @9% per annum. So calculated, the award comes to Rs.6,17,000/-.
11. In the wake of aforesaid, the appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,17,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventeen thousand) along with interest @6% per annum to the claimantsrespondent nos.1 to 5 from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 04.05.2011 till payment. The award amount with accrued interest shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today, whereafter the same shall be proportionately deposited in the names of the claimants and disbursed to them by the learned Tribunal in terms of its order. Other part of the order of the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
……………………….. DR. A.K.RATH, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated 11th January, 2019/Uks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% addition for future prospects to a self-employed deceased aged 37 years.
Whether the default interest awarded at 9% per annum was legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2018) 69 OCR (SC) 1Distinguished¶22
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rebati Maharana
A.K.RATH
Dr. A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
