Allowed

Iffco Tokio G.I.Co. Ltd. v. Sayam Khan

Orissa HC25 Jul 2023MACA/75/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an insurance appeal by enhancing motor accident compensation from Rs.10.46 lakhs to Rs.16.51 lakhs. The court allowed the insurer to recover against the silent vehicle owner and increased dependency loss deductions based on the number of dependents per precedent.

What did the court decide?

Insurer ordered to deposit Rs.16,51,951/- plus interest at 6% per annum within three months; statutory deposit refunded on proof of discharge.

Iffco Tokio G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Sayam Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.75 of 2022

¶3

IFFCO TOKIO G.I.Co. Ltd.

¶4

…. Appellant Mr.A.A.Khan, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sayam Khan and others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.B.Das, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

Order No.

ORDER 25.7.2023

The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the AppellantInsurer and Mr.Das, learned counsel for claimants-Respondent No.1 to 4.

¶16

Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment dated 25^th October 2021 of the District Judge-Cum-1^st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Malkangiri in M.A.C. Case No.18 of 2017, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.10,46,080/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 23^rd April 2017.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Mr. Khan submits that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra XYLO D4 bearing Registration No.OD30-7333 did not have a valid license and therefore, the Insurer is

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 18:23:42

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

not liable to pay the compensation amount. He further questions quantification of compensation amount and prays to delete amounts of Rs.50,000/- granted towards transportation cost and Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶22

On the other hand, the claimants have filed their crossobjection praying for enhancement of the compensation amount by addition of future prospects and adequate amount towards consortium. Their further case is that 1/4^th amount should be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd , since four dependents are there.

¶23

It is seen that the police upon completion of investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for commission of offence under Sections 304-A/337/338 of the I.P.C. and Section 181 of the M.V. Act. The owner has though appeared and filed his reply, but remained silent on such contention of the Insurer regarding absence of valid driving license on the part of the driver. The owner even did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses adduced either from the side of the claimants or by the Insurer. Thus, keeping in view the conduct of the owner and the silence on his part, the Insurer is granted liberty to recover the compensation amount against the owner.

¶24

So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, no reason is found to reduce the medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/granted by the Tribunal since the deceased remained under Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed treatment for a period of sixteen days from the date of accident Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: SecretaryReason: Authentication till her death. Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 18:23:42

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

It is seen that the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,405/- per month has deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses while computing loss of dependency. The Tribunal also failed to add any future prospects on the income of the deceased. So without disturbing the finding on income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal, personal expenses to the extent of 1/4^th , instead of 1/3^rd , is deducted for computing loss of dependency in terms of the principles decided in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680, since four dependents are there. Thus, the loss of dependency is recomputed to Rs.13,71,951/- including addition of future prospects to the extent of 40%. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, Rs.1,50,000/- towards consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are liable to be added further. Thus, the final amount comes to Rs.16,51,951/-, payable along with 6% per annum.

¶28

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Insurer to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.16,51,951/- (Sixteen lakhs fifty one thousand nine hundred fifty one) along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application within a period of three months from today, which shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on such terms and proportion to be fixed by the Tribunal.

¶29

The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with Signature Not Verifiedaccrued interest thereon shall be refunded to him on proper Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWALapplication and on production of proof of deposit of the award Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttacka mou nt before the learned Tribunal. Date: 08-Aug-2023 18:23:42

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Certified copies of the document as well as evidences as produced by Mr.Khan in course of hearing are kept on record.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶33

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶34

C.R.Biswal

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 18:23:42

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Iffco Tokio G.I.Co. Ltd. v. Sayam Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio G.I.Co. Ltd. v. Sayam Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manasi Manik Vs Manoranjan Sahu

United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs Vinay Sankar Choudhury

Ajaya Ku.Das Vs Achutananda Mishra

Prasanna Ku.Patra Vs Rahtun Bibi

Bira Pradhan Vs Union of India

Sibaram Rana Vs Mir Mahammed Kalim