Partly allowed

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose v. Saraswati Jena

Orissa HC9 Apr 2024MACA/1105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow challenged a motor accident award apportioning compensation 20:80 between her and the deceased's mother. The Court reapportioned it 60:40 in her favour and granted Rs. 1,00,000 consolidated over and above, directing the insurer to deposit within eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose Vs Saraswati Jena — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.1105 of 2023

¶3

Rupali @ Rupa G hose …. A ppellant

¶4

Mr. B.B. Singh, A d vocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Saraswati Jena a n d others …. Res p ondents M r . G.C. Samantaray, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶7

COR A M: MR. J USTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

¶8

ORDER 09.04.2024

¶9

Order No.

¶10

1. Heard M r. Singh, learned counsel for the claiman t appellant and Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶11

None a ppears for respondent No.1, namely, the other claimant as agai n st whom the notice has been held suffici e nt by the Court’s order dated 5^th March, 2024.

¶12

Instant appeal is filed by the claimant appellant c hallenging the apportionment of compensation directed in M.A.C. C a se No.361 of 2016 by learned 3^rd Additional District Judge-cum-5^th M.A.C.T., Balasore and als o for enhancement of the same as well on t h e grounds stated therein.

¶13

Mr. Sin g h, learned counsel for the claimant appell a nt would submit that the appellant is wife of the deceased, whereas, respondent No.1 is the mo t her and in so far as the compensation amount is concerned, it ha s been apportioned in the ratio 20:80% r e spectively and the same is unjust and unreasonable. It is contende d that the

¶14

P a ge 1 of 3

¶15

claimant appellant is the widow and since there is a p r ospect of remarriage, lear n ed Tribunal allowed 20% of the compen s ation and rest 80% in fav o ur of mother respondent No.1 which is n ot legally tenable and while advancing such a plea, he refers to an o r der dated 17^th November, 2 023 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2195 o f 2020. A copy of order d ated 5^th April, 2016 in MACA Nos. 11 4 8/12 and 24/2013 of this C ourt is also placed reliance on by Mr. Sin g h to claim that such apportionment at 20:80% is liable to be set aside with fresh apportionment p roviding a better share to the deceased w ife. One more decision in Bimal Kanwar & others Vrs. Kishore Dan & others AIR 2013(SC)3830 is referred to by Mr. Singh while demandin g a greater share in favour o f the claimant appellant (wife).

¶16

Consid e ring the submission of Mr. Singh, learned c ounsel for the claimant a p pellant and as none has turned up f o r mother respondent No.1 , taking into account the orders of this Court referred hereto above, it is inclined to reapportion the compensation in the ratio 60:40 inste a d of 80:20 as it has been pleaded for by Mr. Singh, learned counsel f or the claimant appellant (wife) as the same would rather be fair a n d reasonable. In fact, the Court reached at such a conclusion keepi n g in view the decision of the Apex Cou r t in Bimal Kumar (supra) a n d also the orders referred to above, whe r ein, larger share has been al l owed in favour of the wife during the life t ime of the parents of the de c eased.

¶17

Further m ore, Mr. Singh learned counsel for th e claimant appellant submit s that the average income of the decease d has been wrongly calculat e d by learned Tribunal i.e. Rs. 13,846/- w hich has been assessed at Rs. 13,000/-. Considering such a plea and recording the submission o f Mr. Samantray, learned counsel for the r espondent No.3 Insurance Company, the Court is rather inclined t o allow a

¶18

P age 2 of 3

¶19

consolidated a m ount of Rs. 1,00,000/- over and above the compensation su m to be apportioned in the ratio of 60:40 % .

¶20

Hence, it is ordered.

¶21

In the r e sult, the appeal stands allowed in part. Co n sequently the impugned a w ard dated 12^th September, 2023 passed in M AC Case No. 361 of 2016 by learned 3^rd Additional District Judge-cum-5^th M.A.C.T., Balaso r e is hereby modified to the extent as afore s aid with a direction for re a pportionment of the compensation amo u nt in the ratio of 60:40 % . The Court further directs the Insurance Company respondent No.3 to deposit the consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/within eight we e ks from today. In the event the above deposit is made, learned T r ibunal shall do well to reapportion the co m pensation among the clai m ant appellant and respondent No.1 with a proper notice to the latt e r.

¶22

kabita

¶23

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 11-Apr-2024 12:18:33

¶26

P age 3 of 3

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose v. Saraswati Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose v. Saraswati Jena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabir Kumar Harichandan Vs the State of Odisha

Bulu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nisamani Rath

Arun Kumar Singh Vs Union of India

The Divl. Manager, M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra Sahoo

M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Puspanjali Das