Divl. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mamata Prusty — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Divl. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mamata Prusty — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal and cross-objection disposed of; impugned award dated 12.10.2022 modified to the extent stated — compensation reduced to Rs.9,25,000/- payable with interest at 7% per annum, to be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company within eight weeks and disbursed to claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3; penal interest dispensed with; statutory deposit with accrued interest refunded to the appellant Insurance Company soon after disbursement.

Issue for consideration

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3 was excessive — specifically future prospects at 30% instead of 25%, the heads of consortium, loss of estate and general damages, and the treatment of the deceased as a highly skilled worker. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court accepted the appellant Insurance Company's contention towards the loss of future prospects, which ought to have been Rs.70,000/- instead.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding absence of any evidence on the deceased's vocation, the Court treated him as a highly skilled worker with a minimum daily wage of Rs.205/-.

Key takeaways

Adopting the calculation arrived at from the side of the appellant Insurance Company, the Court held the compensation to be reduced to Rs.9,25,000/- payable along with interest at 7% per annum.ratio¶6
The compensation shall not carry the penal interest levied by the learned Tribunal; the penal interest is dispensed with.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MACA No.23 of 2023 (Orissa High Court at Cuttack, order dated 04.04.2024) — Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mamata Prusty and others (R.K. Pattanaik, J.). The insurer appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded on 12.10.2022 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Dhenkanal in M.A.C. Case No.337 of 2014, contending that future prospects should have been 25% instead of 30%, that consortium, loss of estate and general damages should total Rs.70,000/-, and that the deceased — though claimed to be a Goldsmith with no supporting vocation evidence — should rank only as a skilled labour. The claimants' cross-objection maintained the Tribunal's assessment as fair and reasonable. Notwithstanding the absence of vocation evidence, the Court retained the deceased as a highly skilled worker at a minimum daily wage of Rs.205/-, accepted the insurer's contention on future prospects (Rs.70,000/- instead) and its overall recalculation, reduced the compensation to Rs.9,25,000/- with interest at 7% per annum, dispensed with the Tribunal's penal interest, and directed deposit within eight weeks for disbursement to claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3, with refund of the statutory deposit and accrued interest to the insurer. Both the appeal and the cross-objection stood disposed of, the award being modified accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.23 of 2023

Divisional Mana g er,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

…. A ppellant

Mr. S. Pradhan, A d vocate

-Versus-

Mamata Prusty a nd others

nd others …. Res p ondents Mr. J. Dash, A d vocate

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

ORDER

04.04.2024

Order No.

Heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the a ppellant Insurance Comp a ny and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the c laimants respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

None appears for respondent No.4, namely, own e r of the offending vehicle.

Instant a ppeal is filed by the appellant Insurance C ompany challenging the q uantum of compensation directed in M. A .C. Case No.337 of 2014 by learned Additional District Judg e -cum-3^rd M.A.C.T., Dhenk a nal with an award dated 12^th October, 20 2 2 on the grounds stated therein.

Mr. Pr a dhan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the compensation allowed in f avour of the claimants res p ondent Nos.1 to 3 is on the higher side, inasmuch as, loss towards future prospects would have been 25% i n stead of 30% and that a p art, consortium, loss of estate and general damages should have be e n Rs.70,000/-. It is further submitted that the deceased should not have been treated as a highly skille d worker

P a ge 1 of 3

though claimed t o be a Goldsmith in absence of any such evidence from the side of t he claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3. With t h e above submission and r ecalculation, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant Insura n ce Company arrives at an amount of Rs.9, 2 5,000/as the compensa t ion payable to the claimants respondent N o s.1 to 3 with the interest. It is contended by Mr. Pradhan lastly sub m its that the deceased sh o uld be treated as a skilled labour instead o f highly skilled.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the claimants re s pondent Nos.1 to 3 referri n g to the cross objection, on the other hand, submits that the decease d was a Goldsmith and even in absence of any such evidence regardi n g the vocation, since learned Tribunal has accepted the same, it is no t required to be disturbed. In other words, a ccording to Mr. Dash, the compensation which has been directed b y learned Tribunal is fair and reasonable.

Having regard to the facts pleaded on rec o rd and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, notwithstanding any such evidence on vocation vis- à -vis the deceased, the C o urt is inclined to treat him as a highly skill worker with a minimu m daily wage payable at the rate of Rs.2 0 5/-. The Court is inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Pradhan , learned counsel for the a ppellant Insurance Company towards th e loss of future prospects which ought to have been Rs.70,000/instead. Having consider e d the calculation which has been arrived at from the side of the appe l lant Insurance Company, the Court is of t he view that the amount of compensation is accordingly to be redu c ed to an amount of Rs.9, 2 5,000/- payable along with interest at th e rate of 7% per annu m . The Court is of the further view t hat the compensation sh o uld not carry the penal interest as it has be e n levied

P a ge 2 of 3

by the learned T ribunal,if in case the compensation not to be paid within the stipulated period.

Hence, It is ordered.

In the r esult, the appeal and cross-objectionstanddisposed of. Consequentl y , the impugned award dated 12^th Octob e r, 2022 passed M.A.C. C ase No.337 of 2014 by the learned A d ditional District Judge-cu m -3^rd M.A.C.T, Dhenkanal is hereby modifi e d to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the appellant Insurance Company to deposit an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- payable al o ng with theinterest at th e rate of 7% per annum within eight we e ks from today,which shal l immediatelythereafter be disbursed in favour of the claimants respon d ent Nos. 1 to 3. The Court further directs that the compensation s h all not carry any penal interest which i s hereby dispensed with. T he Court further directs thestatutory dep o sit along with accrued in t erest thereon to be refunded to the a ppellant Insurance Comp a ny soon after disbursement of the compensation in favour of the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

Rojina

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 05-Apr-2024 19:33:12

P a ge 3 of 3