M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ersad Khan

The appeal is by the appellant Insurance Company, whereas, cross-objection is at the behest of the claimants for enhancement of compensation directed by the learned 1^st MACT, Jajpur in MAC Case No.235 of 2018.

¶17

In so far as the appeal of the appellant Insurance Company is concerned, the challenge is to the deduction from the income of the deceased spent towards personal living expenses, which should have been 50% instead besides the penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in case, the compensation amount is not paid within three months from the date of the impugned award.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deduction should have been 50% since the deceased was a bachelor and was not survived by a large dependent family as it has been held by learned Tribunal. It is not in denial that the deceased left behind his elder brother and parents and therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, the deduction

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

should have been 50% in place of 1/3^rd . As to the penal interest, it is further submitted that the same was unwarranted.

¶21

On the other hand, the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the cross-objection for enhancement on the ground that the deceased was working as head cook at Hyderabad and it was supported by a salary certificate marked as Ext.10 before the learned Tribunal, which was lost sight of and instead he was treated as a skilled wager with monthly income of Rs. 7,605/-.

¶22

Since it is not denied with regard to remaining members of the family of the deceased, considering the fact that it is not a big family dependent on him, the Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to hold that that the deduction ought to have been 50% instead of 1/3^rd . Furthermore, the Court is inclined to accept the contention that there was no need for any penal interest levied on the compensation amount in the case of default within the stipulated period. As regards, the enhancement of compensation, a copy of Ext.10 is produced today in Court and on perusal of the same, the Court finds that the annual salary of the deceased by the time of the accident was Rs.20,000/issued by a private restaurant. The said fact is not denied by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4. Though a gross salary is shown but learned Tribunal still considered the deceased as a skilled labourer and assessed his monthly income at Rs.7,605/-, which in the considered view of the Court, is quite fair and reasonable as he was working as a cook in a private hotel at Hyderabad. Rather, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income with a reasonable amount of Rs.7,605/- despite gross annual income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- as made to reveal from Ext.10. So therefore, no case is made out for enhancement of compensation. With the calculation arrived at after deduction of 50% instead of 1/3^rd , the compensation payable to the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4 stands at Rs.12,19,876/-.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

7. Hence, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, whereas, the cross-objection stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned in MAC Case No.235 of 2018 is hereby modificed. Consequently, with the disposal of the appeal, the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.12, 19, 876/- which shall be payable to the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4 at the rate of 6% per annum and to be deposited within eight weeks from today and on such deposit being made, it shall immediately be disbursed to the claimants without delay. It is further directed that the statutory deposit along with accrued interest on the same shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company on proof of such compensation disbursed in favour of the claimant respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Balaram Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 13-Mar-2024 19:28:49

¶29

Page 3 of 3

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ersad Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ersad Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshirod Kumar Chand Vs Ashok Kumar Dehury, O.A.S.

Bijaya Kumar Sutar Vs Panchanan Nayak, Tahasildar, Pattamundai

Chaitan Samal Vs Narahari Sethy,Collector Cuttack

Judhistir Samantaray Vs State of Orissa

Dhanu Sahu Vs Tahasildar,Khondamal

Niharjan Bibi Vs State of Odisha