Mamata Rana Vs Manjulata Rout — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mamata Rana Vs Manjulata Rout — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; impugned award in M.A.C. Case No.67 of 2020 modified to the extent indicated; respondent No.2 Insurance Company directed to deposit Rs.7,30,485/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application (7th July, 2020) within eight weeks, to be immediately disbursed to the claimant-appellants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the monthly income of the deceased ought to be reckoned by treating him as a skilled labour (driver holding a licence for heavy goods vehicles) at Rs.10,000/- per month, instead of the Rs.8,589/- fixed by the Tribunal treating him as an unskilled labour. +1 more

Court's answer

Possession by the deceased of a driving licence issued by the licensing authority to ply a heavy goods vehicle (Ext.8, proved undisputed) meant he could not be treated as an unskilled labour notwithstanding absence of evidence as to his vocation and income; he was required to be considered a skilled labour as a driver of heavy goods vehicles.

Ratio / Principle

Notional monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.10,000/-, since application of the minimum wage for a skilled labour would yield more than that sum.

Key takeaways

On the refixed income, loss of dependency recomputed at Rs.18,90,000/- in place of Rs.11,59,550/-, and with Rs.70,000/- towards general damages the total compensation payable to the claimant-appellants became Rs.19,60,000/-.ratio¶19
Since the Tribunal award with interest stood paid, the balance of Rs.7,30,485/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application (7th July, 2020) was directed to be paid by respondent No.2 Insurance Company within eight weeks, to be disbursed to the claimant-appellants.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No.180 of 2023, decided 19.03.2024) by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.A.C. Case No.67 of 2020 by the learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Dhenkanal in a death case. Held: although there was no evidence of the deceased's vocation or income, the possession by the deceased of a driving licence to ply heavy goods vehicles (original produced before the Tribunal and marked Ext.8, and not in dispute) precluded his treatment as an unskilled labour on the minimum-wage notification; he was to be reckoned as a skilled labour (driver), and his notional monthly income was fixed at Rs.10,000/- (against Rs.8,589/- fixed by the Tribunal), since the skilled-labour minimum wage would exceed that figure. Loss of dependency recomputed at Rs.18,90,000/- in place of Rs.11,59,550/-; with Rs.70,000/- towards general damages, total compensation fixed at Rs.19,60,000/-. The Tribunal award with interest having been paid, respondent No.2 Insurance Company was directed to pay the balance of Rs.7,30,485/- with 6% per annum interest from the date of application (7th July, 2020) within eight weeks, for immediate disbursement to the claimant-appellants. Appeal allowed in part; impugned award modified accordingly. (Bench: R.K. Pattanaik, J.; respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not appear.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.180 of 2023

Mamata Rana and others

…. Appellants

Mr. P.K. Mishra,Advocate

-Versus-

Manjulata Rout and another …. Respondents

Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.2

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

19.03.2024

1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants appellants and Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

None appears for respondent No.1, namely, owner of the offending vehicle.

Instant appeal is filed by the claimants appellants for enhancement of compensation directed in M.A.C. Case No.67 of 2020 by the Court of learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Dhenkanal on the grounds stated therein.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants appellants would submit that the deceased was having a D.L to ply heavy vehicles and was earning Rs.10,000/- a month but the same was not accepted by learned Tribunal, which fixed it at Rs.8,589/- considering him as an unskilled labour and applying the minimum wage as per the Government notification prevalent then which is not correct and justified. That apart, it is submitted that there has been no sum included towards loss of future prospects, as at the time of accident, the deceased was 38 years.

Page 1 of 3

On the other hand, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company submits that there has been no evidence on record regarding the profession of the deceased though he was held to have possessed a D.L. to ply heavy goods vehicles, hence, therefore, learned Tribunal did not commit any error or illegality in fixing the monthly income at Rs.8,589/- having treated him as an unskilled labour.

It is not in dispute that the deceased was having a D.L. at the time of accident. Such D.L. was to apply heavy goods vehicle. In fact, the claimants appellants produced original D.L before the learned Tribunal and marked as Ext.8. Since such a D.L had been issued by the licensing authority to ply a heavy goods vehicle and it was in favour of the deceased notwithstanding absence of any evidence with regard to the vocation as a driver and monthly income Rs.10,000/-, the Court is of the considered view that he should not have been treated as an unskilled labour. In other words, the deceased was required to be considered as a skilled labour being a driver of heavy goods vehicle with a D.L i.e. Ext.8 to be in his possession and considering the same and having concluded so, by not disbelieving the employment of the deceased, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.10,000/- as in any case such income would be more than Rs.10,000/- if the minimum wage for a skilled labour is applied. Furthermore, the loss of dependency becomes Rs.18,90,000/- instead of Rs. 11,59,550/- and with additional sum of Rs.70,000/- towards general damages, the total compensation becomes Rs.19,60,000/which in the considered view of the Court should be payable to the claimants appellants.

Since the compensation which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal with the interest has been paid in the meantime, the balance amount of Rs.7,30,485/- with interest at the rate of 6%

Page 2 of 3

from the date of application filed should be directed to be paid by respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

8. Hence, It is ordered.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned award in M.A.C. Case No.67 of 2020 by Court of learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Dhenkanal is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to deposit an amount of Rs.7,30,485/- payable along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of application filed i.e. on 7^th July, 2020 within eight weeks from today, which shall immediately be disbursed in favour of the claimants appellants.

Rojina

(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 21-Mar-2024 19:05:41

Page 3 of 3