D.M.(T.P Cell) M/S .New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Vs Pushpalata Mahakud

1. Heard Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the a ppellant Insurance Com p any and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants respo n dent Nos.1 to 4.

¶13

2. None a p pears for respondent No.5.

¶14

Instant a ppeal is filed by the appellant Insurance C ompany challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by learned 1^st Additional District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Cuttack while dis p osing of the proceeding i n M.A.C No.1130 of 2018 with the impugn e d award dated 31^st October, 2022 on the grounds stated therein.

¶15

Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the income tax return of the decease d for the financial years 2 015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as assessed for the purpose of aver a ge yearly income is doubtful. It is claimed that the income tax returns cannot be referred to and relied upo n for the assessment of a nnual income of the deceased which are selfdeclaratory in n a ture. It is further submitted thateven after the death

¶16

P a ge 1 of 4

¶17

of deceased, th e alleged truck owned by him is still with h is family and as such, there is income generated from the transport business, so, therefore, l e arned Tribunal could not have allowed a sum of Rs.76,47,000/-, which is unjustified and hence, the same s h ould be reduced.

¶18

Mr. M o hanty, learned counsel for claimants respondents, on the other h a nd, would submit that for the purpose o f annual income to be a ssessed at, learned Tribunal did not co m mit any serious error, ra t her, referred to and placed reliance on th e Income Tax Returns for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were fur n ished prior to the alleged accident. With r egard to the second limb of argument, Mr. Mohanty would submit t h at there has been no e v idence in rebuttal from the side of the a ppellant Insurance Comp a ny vis-à-vis the truck being owned by the f amily of the deceased ev e n after his death.

¶19

Consid e ring the fact that Income Tax Returns h a ve been submitted befor e learned Tribunal by the claimants respon d ents and though self-declaration of the deceased submitted be f ore the accident, the C o urt is of the view that there is no reason t o discard the same or rej e ct on any such ground which has been pleaded for by Mr. Satpat h y, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. As to the ownership of the vehicle used in running transport business originally owned by the deceased and s t ill to be with the family after his death, in absence of any such rebuttal evidence, the C o urt is again not inclined to accept such a plea to reduce the com p ensation.

¶20

P a ge 2 of 4

¶21

In cour s e of hearing, one more contention is adv a nced by Mr. Satpathy w h ich is with regard to an interest on future p rospects allowed by lea r ned Tribunal. Having regard to the fact t hat such interest is allowed on the future prospects and the subje c t matter which, as infor m ed to the Court, is still sub-judice before t he Apex Court, the Cour t is not in favour of denying same, which h as been allowed by le a rned Tribunal. Hence, having consid e red the submissions of both the sides and taking into account the sum allowed on diff e rent heads, the Court reaches at a conclusi o n that a sum of Rs.70 lac should rather be payable to the c laimants respondents. The Court is also of the view that the com p ensation amount should b e allowed to be paid alongwith an inter e st at the rate of 6% per a nnum but without any default interest as it has been levied by learn e d Tribunal at 12% per annum. With the a foresaid discussion and view of the Court, the compensation w hich is determined at R s.70 lac is held liable to be paid by the a ppellant Insurance Comp a ny to the claimants respondents at the sa m e rate of interest allowed by learned Tribunal.

¶22

8. Hence i t is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the appeal stands allowed i n part. Consequently, t h e impugned award dated 31^st October, 2022 passed in M.A.C Case No.1130 of 2018 by learned 1^st Additional District Judge-cum-1^st M. A .C.T, Cuttack is hereby modified to the extentas aforesaid with a direction to the appellant Insurance Co m pany to deposit an amo u nt of Rs.70 lac along with interest at the ra t e of 6% per annum the r eon within eight weeks, which shall ther e after be disbursed in fav o ur of the claimants respondents. It is dire c ted that there shall be n o penal interest as allowed by the learned Tribunal

¶24

P a ge 3 of 4

¶25

and the compe n sation shall be paid along with the intere s t of 6% from the date o f claim application filed i.e. on 18^th Decemb e r, 2018. Lastly, it is ord e red that the statutory deposit along with accrued interest on the same shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company on p roof of deposit of compensation before learned Tribunal and its disbursement in favour of the c laimants respondents.

¶26

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶27

Rojina

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 15-Apr-2024 12:41:42

¶30

P a ge 4 of 4

D.M.(T.P Cell) M/S .New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack v. Pushpalata Mahakud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M.(T.P Cell) M/S .New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack v. Pushpalata Mahakud

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

Md.Rahim Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Swain Vs Satyabrata Bhuyan

Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Mamata Swain

Maheswar Mallik Vs the Collector and Dm, Ganjam

Mali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha