The Court modified a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, directing addition of 40% of established income for future prospects and correction of the interest calculation date, citing the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi.
Award modified to include 40% of established income for future prospects and 6% interest from the date of application.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.68 of 2019
Sudarshan Barik
…. Appellant
Mr. Sanjib Swain, Advocate
-versus-
National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another
Respondents Mr. Chittarajan Swain, Advocate for R-1
CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.11.2023
Order No.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 by the Claimant-Appellant challenging award/judgment dated 04.05.2018 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in M.A.C. No.371 of 2012.
3. The Appellant as Claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for death of his wife, namely, Kabita @ Tikina Barik in an accident that took place on 04.08.2012.
4. The factual background of the present appeal, in gist, is that on 04.08.2012 at about 3 P.M. the Appellant along with his
Page 1 of 6
wife Kabita @ Tikina Barik were travelling by a Scooter bearing Registration No.O.S.P.-1724 from Puri towards Satapada. On the way, the Appellant kept his Scooter in the extremely left side of the morrum portion of the road and was attending a phone call on his mobile phone and his wife (deceased) was standing beside him. At that time the offending vehicle Hero Honda CD Deluxe Motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-13H-6417 coming from the Puri side at a very high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner, while giving way to a bullock cart, lost its control over the Motorcycle and collided with the deceased wife of the Appellant, as a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries on head, nose, ear and mouth and became unconscious at the spot. Later on although the deceased was taken to the hospital, at the hospital she was declared dead. The Appellant lodged an F.I.R. at Brahmagiri Police Station on the very same day. Accordingly, post mortem was conducted at the District Head Quarter Hospital, Puri and a case was registered under Section 279/304-A of the I.P.C. at Brahmagiri P.S. bearing No.184 dated 04.08.2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Ranjan Kumar Mohapatra. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, submitted that although the Appellant had claimed a total sum
Page 2 of 6
of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, however the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned award/judgment has allowed the M.A.C. Case and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,82,000/against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order dated 4.5.2018. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the awarded compensation amount is too low and the same has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Appellant referring to the evidence on record submitted that the income of the deceased should have been assessed at a higher rate than the rate at which the Tribunal has assessed the compensation amount. He further submitted that the amount that has been awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of Estate are too low.
6. To justify that the deceased was earning a higher income, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted before this Court that the deceased was doing tailoring work, painting, handicraft work and was earning a profit of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. Such fact has not been considered in its proper perspective by the Tribunal. Therefore, it was contended that the Tribunal has committed an illegality by assessing the monthly income of the Petitioner at a very low rate.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the income has been assessed on the higher side by the Tribunal.
Page 3 of 6
Therefore, the same needs to be reviewed and reduced by this Court. He further contended that there was absolutely no evidence to establish the fact that the Petitioner was doing tailoring work, painting and handicraft work and was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. So far the other heads are concerned, on which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1Insurance Company submitted that the same is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of their suggestions and on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is based on guess work. This Court further observes that although the Appellant had claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month, there is no evidence on record to establish such fact. In the absence of the specific evidence with regard to the monthly income, it is open to the Tribunal to assess the monthly income by adopting a very realistic and pragmatic approach. On a careful consideration, this Court found no illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal by assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Moreover, the Tribunal has rightly applied 17 multiplier taking into consideration the age of the victim to be 27 years. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
Page 4 of 6
9. This Court on a careful examination of the impugned award found that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of future prospect in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . On perusal of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court observed that the dispute with regard to future prospect has been conclusively decided. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-59.4 of the judgment has categorically held that in case deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and the 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. It has also been held that the established income means the income minus the tax component. By applying the ratio of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by not granting any amount on future prospect. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 27 years, which is admittedly below 40 years, the claimant shall be entitled to 40% of established income towards future prospect. Accordingly, this Court directs that 40% of the established income be added to the
Page 5 of 6
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover, this Court also observed that while directing payment of interest @ 6%, learned Tribunal has directed payment of the interest from the date of the order, i.e., 4.5.2018. On a careful examination of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not in conformity with the law. The Claimant is entitled to get interest from the date of the application @ 6%.
10. In such view of the mater, the impugned award dated 4.5.2018 stands modified to the extent that in addition to the awarded amount, the Appellant shall get a further sum of 40% of the establishment income towards future prospect along with interest @ 6% on the awarded amount from the date of application. It is further directed that the Insurance Company shall do well to pay the awarded amount within a period of two months from today.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 29-Nov-2023 19:38:54
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessment of monthly income by the Tribunal was based on untenable guess work without specific evidence.
Whether the Tribunal committed an error by failing to award any amount towards loss of future prospects for a deceased below the age of 40.
Whether the Tribunal correctly fixed the commencement date for interest payable on the awarded compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay SethiApplied¶28
(2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
M.A.C. No.371 of 2012Referred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudarshan Barik
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
A.K. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
