Partly allowed

Manager-in-Chargelegal,Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagyam Rao

Orissa HC19 Jan 2021MACA/1205/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This challenge by the Insurance Company and the claimants resulted in setting aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The court modified the compensation to Rs. 8,50,000 rather than the appellant's specific requests for reduction or enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was modified to Rs.8,50,000. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit this amount with 6% interest from the date of filing within eight weeks.

Manager-in-Chargelegal,Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Bhagyam… — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

MACA NO.1205 of 2017

¶2

5. 19.01.2021

¶3

MACA NOS.1205 & 1008 OF 2017

¶4

These matters are taken up through Video Conferencing because of COVID-19 Pandemic.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties to both the appeals.

¶6

The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned 7^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in M.A.C. Case No.134 of 2015 awarding an amount of Rs.9,06,010/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that when the F.I.R. was against an unknown vehicle and inquest was silent about the involvement of any vehicle and no independent charge sheeted witness has been examined by the claimants to prove the involvement of vehicle in the alleged accident when the specific stand of the opposite party no.2-Insurance company before the learned Tribunal was that the vehicle has been planted by the claimants in connivance with the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, learned Tribunal should have taken a judicial note of these irregularities during adjudication of the case.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal in absence of any proper proof have assessed income of the injured notionally

¶10

¶11

i.e., @ Rs.15,000/- which is erroneous and not sustainable in eyes of law.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that when the claimants have failed to adduce any evidence that the deceased was having some earnings, learned Tribunal should have assessed social status of the deceased and compensation on that score is in higher side and not sustainable.

¶13

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the impugned award is liable to be modified and enhanced holding the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and 50% future prospect keeping in view the age of the deceased when the deceased was aged about 29 years and maintaining the entire family as an Assistant Interior designer, having monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and should not have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- by the learned Tribunal without any basis and in absence of any contrary evidences.

¶14

Learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the interest should have been allowed @ 12% per annum from the date of application till payment on the entire award amount instead of 6% per annum.

¶15

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order more particularly on the basis on which the same has been arrived at, the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned 7^th Motor Accident Claims

¶16

¶17

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in M.A.C. Case No.134 of 2015 is set aside and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified to Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty thousand). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till realization before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same amongst the claimants proportionately on proper identification.

¶18

The statutory deposit before this Hon’ble Court be refunded to the Insurance company along with accrued interest upon showing the receipt of deposit of the modified awarded amount before the learned Tribunal.

¶19

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of.

¶20

……..…..…………

¶21

P. Patnaik, J.

Manager-in-Chargelegal,Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagyam Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager-in-Chargelegal,Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagyam Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Tarei Vs R.T.O.Bbsr (1)

Biswajit Raj Vs R.T.O.Chandikhole

Maheswar Parida Vs R.T.O. Bbsr (1)

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Susila Mallick

A.Bhagyam Rao Vs Prasan Paschimakabata

Roji @ Rosy Padhan Vs Byasedev @ Byasedeba Mishra