Achyutananda Routray Vs Ajit Ku.Routray

Heard Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.3 and Mr. A.A. Khan, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.4.

¶15

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27^th October, 2017 of learned 1^st ADJ-cum1^st MACT, Cuttack passed in MAC Case No.325 of 2003, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 5^th May, 2003 has been granted on account of death of deceased Mrutunjaya Routray in the motor vehicular accident dated 16^th December, 2002.

¶16

The claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount on various grounds. It is submitted that wrong multiplier has been applied and the income of the deceased has been

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

wrongly determined. It is also submitted that future prospects has not been added while computing the compensation amount.

¶19

The accident took place on 16^th December, 2002 when the deceased was travelling in a Maruti Car which dashed against the truck coming from the opposite side. The liability on both the insurers to indemnify the compensation amount equally, as directed by the tribunal, is not disputed. None of the insurers do dispute their liability to indemnify the compensation. The entire dispute is on the quantum of compensation.

¶20

According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 22^nd years and prosecuting his study in +3 Commerce (3^rd year) and doing some contractual work relating to installation of computerized weighing machines. He was engaged by M/s.Shree Udyoga during the year 2002-03 and earning Rs.5000/- per month.

¶21

Earlier the claimants had preferred MACA No.541 of 2012 before this court challenging earlier award passed by the tribunal. This court in its earlier order dated 16^th May, 2017 set aside that earlier award and remitted back the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the tribunal passed the present award.

¶22

So far as age of the deceased is concerned, no dispute is raised regarding determination of the same at 22 years. The same is also found supported by the post mortem examination report. But the tribunal has taken the age of the parents for determining the multiplier. In view of the principles settled in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the multiplier based on the age of the deceased is taken as ‘18’.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Next coming to the income aspect, it is contended by the claimants that the deceased was engaged in M/s.Shree Udyog and earned Rs.1,56,000/- for the period from 1^st April, 2002 to 16^th December, 2002. P.W.2 and 4, the Manager and Proprietor of M/s.Shree Udyog have deposed in this regard. At the same time it is seen that the claimants have averred in the claim application regarding income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. While approaching this court earlier in MACA No.541 of 2012 they have also categorically contended that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month and the same is reflected in the earlier order of this court dated 16^th May, 2017. Therefore it is seen that the claimant – Appellants have admitted their case regarding income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. Against the same, if the evidence of P.W.2 and 4 is looked into, it is seen that the amount of Rs.1,56,000/- as stated by those witnesses have been paid after death of the deceased which appears as a development to the contention of the claimants made in the claim petition. It is not explained that if the deceased was working from 1^st April 2002, why his payments were not made till 16^th December 2002. Moreover, the payment has been made after the accident. In such circumstances, based on the admission of the claimants and keeping in view the status of the deceased as a student of Commerce course on the date of his death, the conclusion derived by the tribunal to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- is confirmed. No merit is seen in favour of the contention of the claimants to enhance the same. Adding future prospects to the extent of 40% on the same and applying multiplier 18, with deduction of 50% towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. Adding Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium to both

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

the parents and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is determined at Rs.8,66,000/-, payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶27

In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to both the insurers, i.e. Respondents 3 and 4 to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.8,66,000/- (eight lakhs sixty six thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 5^th May, 2003, in equal proportion, within a period of eight weeks from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Appellants on such terms and proportion to be decided by the learned tribunal.

¶28

The direction for payment of penal interest @ 12% is waived.

¶29

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶30

( B.P. Routray)

¶31

Judge

¶32

M.K.Panda

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2024 18:21:29

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Achyutananda Routray v. Ajit Ku.Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achyutananda Routray v. Ajit Ku.Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnamani Dhadaka Vs Md. Abdaal Akhtar, I.A.S.

Jitendra Swain@Jiten Vs Commnr.,Consolidatio

Kabita Gochhayat Vs Union of India

Gopal Meher Vs State of Odisha

The Manager (Legal), Chola Ms G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Chaitanya Kisku

Duryodhan Majhi Vs State of Odisha