Ruhi Khan Vs Raparthibogi Raju

The Sr. Divisional Manager, The New …. Appellant
India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Ruhi Khan & others …. Respondents
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.03.2024

¶12

Order No.

¶13

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

Instant appeals are filed by the claimant and Insurance Company as against the compensation allowed and directed by the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge-cum-4^th MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No.986 of 2008 on the grounds stated therein.

¶16

In fact, the claimants demand for enhancement of compensation, whereas, for reduction of compensation amount by the Insurance Company since the income of the deceased has been fixed at Rs.12,000/- which is on the higher side, which should have

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

been at the minimum wages applicable at the relevant point of time.

¶19

The Court on considering the materials on record finds that a salary certificate was produced and marked as Ext.18 showing a monthly income of Rs.40,000/- and supported by such other evidence but the learned Tribunal fixed it at Rs.12,000/- having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as a Lift Technician. It is claimed by the Insurance Company that such an amount of Rs.12,000/- a month as the income of the deceased is not acceptable for the fact that there is no other evidence to support his employment in the Company, which is not a registered one. In reply and response to the above, the evidence adduced from the side of the claimant before the learned Tribunal is brought to the notice of the Court and it is contended that the employer of the company stood examined as P.W.2.

¶20

Having regard to the evidence received from the side of the claimants and since a salary certificate was produced, the employment of the deceased cannot be disputed. The only objection is with regard to the monthly income assessed as Rs.12,000/-. The deceased was a Lift Technician and was engaged in a private company and notwithstanding, the salary certificate of Rs.40,000/- i.e. Ext.18, with a guest work, learned Tribunal fixed it at Rs.12,000/- which in the considered view of the Court is on the lesser side. Such a conclusion is reached at in view of the observation of the Tribunal itself that a Lift Technician could not have had monthly income less than Rs.15,000/-. Considering the evidence received from the side of the claimants and such an observation of the Tribunal that income of the deceased could not have been less than Rs.15,000/-, the Court is of the view that the monthly salary vis-a-vis the deceased should at least be fixed at the said amount, if not more.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

With regard to the loss of consortium, learned Tribunal has added sum of Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that loss of consortium vis-à-vis the children should have been Rs.40,000/- each, so therefore, the amount which has been added on the said head to be accordingly enhanced, which is objected to by Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company referring to a decision of the Apex Court in Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Bhagat Singh Rawat and others decided in SLP (C) Nos.1185-1186 of 2021 (XIV) disposed of on 27^th March, 2023. Considering the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SSC 680 and also Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vrs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 , the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision held that reasonable figures on conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, family expenses should be at Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/-, 15,000/- respectively. In view of the decision in Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra), the Court reaches at a conclusion that the amount which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium should not be enhanced except the increment at the rate of 10% in every three years from the date of the impugned award. On a calculation according made, the compensation amount arrives at Rs.25,90,000/-, which in the considered view of the Court would be just and reasonable.

¶23

Hence, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the appeals stand allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned award dated 23^rd December, 2022 passed in MAC Case No.986 of 2008 by the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge-cum-4^th MACT, Cuttack is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit an amount of Rs.25,90,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application filed till its realization, within eight weeks to be immediately disbursed in favour the

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3 soon thereafter. Furthermore, the Court waives the penal interest and refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest in favour of the appellant Insurance Company on proof of such deposit made and disbursement in favour of the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is made clear that loss of consortium with an enhanced rate of 10% every three years shall be calculated by the learned Tribunal with effect from 23^rd December, 2022 with the amount being released forming a part of compensation.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

Balaram

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 09-Mar-2024 16:40:58

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Ruhi Khan v. Raparthibogi Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

Ruhi Khan v. Raparthibogi Raju

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

Santosh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Sutar Vs State of Odisha

Anduru Nagamani Vs State of Odisha

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited Vs Iswar Chandra Mohanty

Pradosh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Kumar Chhotray Vs State of Odisha