Allowed

Pramila Mohanta v. Narendra Ku.Mohanta

Orissa HC17 Aug 2022MACA/402/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge enhanced the compensation payable to claimants in two motor accident cases. Reconsidering the deceased's qualifications, the court directed a consolidated enhancement to Rs.15 lac, to be deposited with the tribunal for disbursement to a widowed mother and a widow.

What did the court decide?

A further consolidated sum of Rs.15,00,000 is directed to be deposited with the Tribunal for disbursement to claimants, with 50% kept in fixed deposit for five years.

Pramila Mohanta Vs Narendra Ku.Mohanta — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.402 of 2019 & MACA No.1040 of 2018

¶3

In MACA No.402 of 2019

¶4

Pramila Mohanta and another …. Appellants Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Narendra Kumar Mohanta and others …. Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶7

In MACA No.1040 of 2018

¶8

Banita Mahanta

¶9

…. Appellant Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶10

-versus-

¶11

Narendra Kumar Mahanta and others …. Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

¶12

ORDER 17.08.2022

¶13

Order No.

¶14

MACA No.402 of 2019 & MACA No.1040 of 2018

¶15

¶16

1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsels for two sets of claimants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶17

2. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated 30.8.2018 of the learned 4^th MACT, Keonjhar in M.A.C. Case No.82/90 of 2017-15 and M.A.C. Case No.48/13 of 2016-15 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.10,76,560/- has been

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

granted in both the cases along with interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim applications, i.e. 03.07.2015 & 06.01.2015 respectively on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 06.11.2014, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶20

3. MACA No.402/2019 has been filed by the mother and brother of the deceased and MACA No.1040/2018 has been filed by the widow of the deceased.

¶21

4. In both the appeals, the quantum of compensation has been questioned and the Appellants have prayed for enhancement of the same.

¶22

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants-claimants that the income of the deceased has not been properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal before rejecting the claim of the applicants regarding employment of the deceased as Manager in M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises, a Fly Ash Bricks factory.

¶23

6. It is submitted that despite the evidence adduced and the employer was examined, the employment of the deceased as such was disbelieved by the learned Tribunal without valid reasons. Even ignoring his educational qualification, the Tribunal took him as skilled labourer to fix the daily wage at Rs.192.50.

¶24

7. Upon hearing all the parties and perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Tribunal has disbelieved the claim of employment of the deceased as Manager, because P.W.3, the employer denied to have issued any appointment order. However,

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

the educational qualification of the deceased as a B. Tech Mechanical Engineer was not disputed. The oral evidence adduced from the side of the claimants reveals that the deceased was serving as the Manager in the Fly Ash Brick factory namely, M/s.Sri Krishna Enterprises and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. On detail scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, their statements are not found satisfactorily credible with regard to employment of the deceased as a Manager in M/s.Sri Krishna Enterprises and drawing of salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. Therefore, the analysis of the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of those witnesses cannot be faulted with. But at the same time, considering the educational qualification of the deceased and the consistent evidence adduced from the side of the claimants that he was engaged in Fly Ash Bricks business, and with some guess work, his income can safely be determined at Rs.10,000/- per month against the finding of the learned Tribunal treating him as a skilled labourer. Such conclusion is drawn considering the date of accident and place of residence of the deceased.

¶27

8. Accordingly, upon re-computation of the compensation by taking into account all such relevant aspects, a further enhanced consolidated sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is proposed to the parties. This is agreed by Mr. P.K. Mishra and Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsels for the claimants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to the discretion of the Court.

¶28

9. Mr. P.K. Mishra and Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimants further submits in agreement that out of the enhanced

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

compensation amount, Rs.6 lakhs be given to the widow of the deceased, namely, Banita Mahanta and rest Rs.9 lakhs be given to the mother and brother of the deceased, namely, Pramila Mohanta and Bijay Kumar Mohanta jointly.

¶31

10. Resultantly, both the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a further consolidated sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs) by depositing the same before the leaned Tribunal within a period of two months from today as per the proportion stated in the above paragraph, which shall be disbursed to the claimants. 50% of the amount given to each of the claimants shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of five years.

¶32

11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶33

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶34

B.K. Barik

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Pramila Mohanta v. Narendra Ku.Mohanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Mohanta v. Narendra Ku.Mohanta

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

Ghanashyam Deo Vs State of Odisha

Mukta Sanda Vs Somanath Swain

Divisional Manager M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chintamani Sahoo

Swadhin Bardhan Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Kumar Das Vs Darshan Das

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bali Majhi