Disposed

Gitanjali Praharaj v. Hena Allum

Orissa HC21 Dec 2022MACA/319/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench disposed of an appeal challenging a Motor Accidents Court compensation award. Relying on Sarla Verma and National Insurance Co. Ltd. precedents, the Court directed the insurer to deposit an additional consolidated sum of Rs. 5,40,000 to cover future prospects and loss of consortium. The sum is to be disbursed by the tribunal in due proportion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to insurer-Respondent No.2 to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs.5,40,000 in the tribunal within two months for disbursement to appellants.

Gitanjali Praharaj Vs Hena Allum — Insurance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.319 of 2003

¶2

…. Gitanjali Praharaj and Others Appellants

¶3

Mr. J.R. Das, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Hena Allum and Another

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.K. Mahali, counsel for Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

21.12.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard Mr. J.R. Das, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants and Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.2.

¶15

Present appeal by the claimants is against the impugned judgment dated 30^th September, 2002 of the learned 3^rd MACT, Puri passed in MAC No.48/226 of 2001/1999, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,08,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 22^nd June, 1999 has been granted on account of death of deceased Basanta Kumar Praharaj in the motor vehicular accident dated 2^nd June, 1999.

¶16

Mr. Das contends in his submission that the tribunal has failed to add any future prospect to the income of the deceased though he was 26 years on the date of accident. The tribunal further did not grant any compensation towards loss of consortium.

¶17

Upon hearing Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer and perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the tribunal by assessing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- has determined the loss of dependency and for the said purpose applied multiplier ‘15’. The said multiplier needs to be corrected to ‘17’ in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Further in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% towards future prospect needs to be added in the income of the deceased. Additionally, respective amount for loss of consortium to the widow and minor child is to be added.

¶18

Considering all such aspects and date of accident, without getting into all details, in the opinion of this court a further compensation amount of Rs.5,40,000/- consolidated would suffice the purpose.

¶19

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer – Respondent No.2 to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs.5,40,000/- (five lakhs forty thousand) before the tribunal, within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Appellants on such terms and proportion to be decided by the learned tribunal.

¶20

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶21

( B.P. Routray)

¶22

Judge

¶23

M.K.Panda

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Gitanjali Praharaj v. Hena Allum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitanjali Praharaj v. Hena Allum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Mohanty@Bablu Vs State of Odisha

Chandrakanti Puta Vs Union of India

Duvvu Ganga Vs Union of India

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Deepa Dash

Divl.Manager,Iriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Golap Rout

Manoranjan Panda Vs Ravinath Bhowmik