Disposed

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sitaram Panda

Orissa HC9 Feb 2023MACA/526/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of an insurance appeal by recalculating death compensation. It found equal negligence by both drivers and ordered both insurers to deposit 50% of Rs.12,65,000 each, adjusting the loss of dependency from Rs.16,79,000 to Rs.12,65,000 based on corrected income evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bidirectional deposit of Rs.6,32,500 each with 6% interest by both insurers before the claim tribunal.

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sitaram Panda — Insurance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.526 of 2017

¶2

The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

¶3

…. Appellant Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Sitaram Panda and Others

¶6

…. Respondents Mr. B. Singh, counsel for Respondents 1-4 Mr. S. Satpathy, counsel for Respondent No.7

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

9.2.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. B. Singh, learned counsel for claimant – Respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for Respondent No.7 – Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶15

Present appeal by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed against impugned judgment dated 20^th December, 2016 of learned 3^rd MACT, Bhadrak passed in MAC No.158 of 2010, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.16,79,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum form the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 27^th December, 2010 has been granted on account of death of deceased Manash Ranjan Panda in the motor vehicular accident dated 16^th December, 2009.

¶16

Mr. Dutta, learned counsel submits that the Appellant is the insurer of the truck bearing registration number OR 08B 1107 and the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the drivers of the

¶17

truck as well as the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number OR 02 AV 9437. He further submits that the police submitted chargesheet against drivers of both the vehicles, but the tribunal ignoring the same attributed entire negligence on the driver of the truck.

¶18

The deceased was an occupant of the Scorpio vehicle and the accident was the result of front collision between two vehicles. Three witnesses have been examined from the side of the claimants and none of them appear to be eye witness of the accident. In this regard, though it is seen that P.W.2 was another occupant of the same Scorpio vehicle, but it is admitted by him during cross-examination that he has not seen the incident which happened in the early morning. In these circumstances, as submitted by Mr. Dutta, the police investigation report with regard to negligence of particular driver plays essential role. According to the police investigation report dated 4^th April, 2011, as produced by Mr. Dutta in course of hearing, the drivers of both the vehicles were rash and negligent for causing the accident reveals that, according to the opinion of the police investigating officer. Since the driver of the Scorpio died, the charge-sheet for criminal prosecution under Section 279/337/338/304-A of I.P.C. was submitted against the driver of the truck only. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 were present at the spot. According to P.W.2, despite he being an occupant of the Scorpio did not see the accident. The circumstance that the accident took place due to front collision on the highway in the early morning hour as described in the police investigation report are found enough to contribute negligence equally on the drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the exemption of Respondent No.7 – Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the insurer of the Scorpio vehicle, from liability is improper. It is held that the negligence is

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

contributory on the part of drivers of both the vehicles on equal proportion and thus both the insurers are liable to indemnify the compensation amount on equal proportion also. It is emphasized here that according to Mr. Satapathy, the validity of the insurance policy in respect of the Scorpio vehicle is not disputed.

¶21

With regard to quantification of compensation amount the tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month based on the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased was working in two establishments, namely NICET and First Computer. As per the claimants the deceased was getting Rs.7000/- from NICET by serving as an Office Coordinator and further getting Rs.3000/from First Computer towards remuneration by serving as Data Operator. The claim regarding employment of the deceased in two establishments simultaneously cannot be accepted as a valid one and therefore, what is counted towards his remuneration as Data Operator in First Computer is liable to be kept out from count. The income of the deceased is accordingly fixed at Rs.7000/- per month, which the deceased was getting from NICET as per claimants. Adding future prospects to the extent of 50% thereon with deduction of 50% towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.63,000/-. The total loss of dependency thus comes to Rs.10,71,000/- by applying multiplier ‘17’. Adding parental consortium of Rs.50,000/-, keeping the date of accident in view, i.e. 16^th December, 2009 and adding Rs.30,000/- towards general damages, it comes to Rs.11,51,000/-. The claimants are found entitled to further amount of Rs.1,14,000/- as granted by the tribunal towards treatment expenses of the deceased. Thus, the final amount of compensation is determined at Rs.12,65,000/-, payable along with

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

interest @ 6% per annum. As stated earlier both the insurance companies are to share the same equally.

¶24

In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to both the Appellant and Respondent No.7, i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit their respective shares to the tune of Rs.6,32,500/- (six lakhs thirty-two thousand five hundred) each before the tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum respectively from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 27^th December 2010, within a period of two months from today; whereafter the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Respondents 1 to 4 on such terms and proportion to be fixed by learned tribunal.

¶25

The statutory deposit made by the Appellant – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. before this court along with accrued interest be refunded to the insurer on proper application and on production of proof of deposit before the tribunal.

¶26

The copies of depositions and final form as produced in course of hearing are kept on record.

¶27

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

¶28

( B.P. Routray)

¶29

Judge

¶30

M.K.Panda

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sitaram Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sitaram Panda

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

Kabuli @ Agadhu Vs Sun Graite Exports

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Dillip Gaud

M/S.Balaji Agro Goodp Ltd. Vs Lokeswar Bag

Manager Tp Claims,Iffco-Tokio G.I.Co.Ltd Vs Ramamani Pradhan

Dr.Kishori Dash Vs Purushottam Edu. and Welfare

Nirupama Pradhan Vs Bidyadhar Mandal