Burundi Harijan Vs Pankajini Mohanty

This appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount passed by the District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur in M.A.C. No.25 of 2016 from Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) to Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakh fifty thousand) in a motor accidental death claim case on the ground of inadequacy of the same has already been heard from the learned counsels of both the sides for its final disposal.

¶13

As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-Ganesh Harijan, the appellant along with his mother being the legal representative of his deceased father had approached the learned 1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur by filing M.A.C. No.25 of 2016

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the motor vehicular accidental death of his father caused through an offending car, which was insured before the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company). After completing the enquiry of the said M.A.C. No.25 of 2016, the learned 1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the appellant and his mother, to which, the appellant and his mother challenged for enhancement of the same from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- by preferring this appeal on the ground of wrong calculation of the monthly income of his deceased father holding his daily wage as Rs.150/- instead of Rs.200/- for an unskilled labourer prevailing at the time of the accident, as the minimum daily wage of an unskilled labour of that time was Rs.200/and for non-addition of any amount towards the future prospective with the annual income of his deceased father for computation of the just compensation amount and accordingly, the appellant along with his mother claimed for providing Rs.6,50,000 (six lakh fifty thousand) more as an additional amount enhancing the awarded compensation amount passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶16

When, during the pendency of the this appeal, the mother of the appellant No.2 (who was the appellant No.1) expired leaving behind appellant No.2 as her LR, the appellant No.2 alone is prosecuting this appeal for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount.

¶17

During the course of hearing, though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company accepted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant to some extent concerning to the holding of daily wage of the deceased as Rs.150 instead of Rs.200/- and nonproviding of any amount towards the future prospective of the

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

deceased by the learned Tribunal in awarding the compensation amount, but opposed to the aforesaid amount i.e.Rs.6,50,000/claimed by the appellant for enhancement of the said amount.

¶20

Taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel of both the sides, i.e. wrong calculation of the daily wage of the deceased as Rs.150 per day instated of Rs.200/- and non-addition of any amount towards the future prospective of the deceased for calculation of the just compensation amount into account by the learned Tribunal, the Court suggested the appellant (claimant) through his learned counsel to receive a tentative lump sum amount i.e. Rs.3,50, 000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) more in addition to the awarded amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) with interest thereon passed by the learned Tribunal (to which, he has already received) without any further interest on the aforesaid additional amount i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- enhancing the awarded compensation amount from Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) to Rs.7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) in total as the just compensation for the motor vehicular accidental death of the deceased, to which, the learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) accepted, but the learned counsel for the Insurance Company left the same upon the discretion of the Court to dispose of the appeal finally passing necessary orders towards the enhancement of the compensation amount as it deems fit and proper.

¶21

So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, it is held that, if a consolidated amount i.e. Rs.3,50, 000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) without any interest thereon as an additional compensation amount in addition to the awarded compensation amount shall be paid to the appellant (claimant) by the

¶22

// 4 //

¶23

Insurance Company as just compensation, then, the same shall cause no prejudice to any party.

¶24

Therefore, on the basis of the reasons assigned above, the appeal preferred by the appellant (claimant) is required to be allowed in part on merit.

¶25

In result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed in part on merit.

¶26

The awarded compensation amount in favour of the appellant (claimant) by the learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur is enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) to Rs.7,50, 000/- (rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) in total.

¶27

As the appellant (claimant) has already received the awarded compensation amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakh) with interest thereon passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur in M.A.C. No.25 of 2016, for which, the appellant-Ganesh Harijan is entitled to get the lumpsum amount of Rs.3,50, 000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) without any interest thereon from the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) as an enhanced (additional) compensation amount.

¶28

The respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit the said amount i.e. Rs.3,50, 000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) before the learned Tribunal in M.A.C. No.25 of 2016 within five weeks hence for the disbursement of the same to the appellant-Ganesh Harijan.

¶29

Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this order to the learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Nabarangpur in reference to M.A.C. No.25 of 2016 for payment of the above enhanced

¶30

// 5 //

¶31

compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,50, 000/- (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) to the appellant-Ganesh Harijan without any interest thereon.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of finally.

¶33

^{Rati Ranjan}

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutt ack, India. Date: 01-Oct-2024 15:05:03

Burundi Harijan v. Pankajini Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burundi Harijan v. Pankajini Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iswar Behera Vs Madan Behera

Sandhyarani Benerjee Vs Binodini Panigrahi

Sarbeswar Vs Ghani

Premananda Mohanty Vs Nityananda Mohanty

Kamal Lochan Pradhan Vs State

Sanatan Balia Vs Nitya Pr.Pattanaik