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

Instant a ppeal is filed by the appellant Insurance C ompany challenging the q uantum of compensation directed in M. A .C. Case No.333 of 201 5 by learned 7^th M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar on the grounds stated therein.

Mr. D u tta, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that there was contributory neglige n ce from the side of the deceased and hence, therefore, the com p ensation amount is to be a ccordingly reduced. Mr. Singh, learned co u nsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, submits that there has been no evide n ce on record in support of the clai m as to contributory negligence by the deceased.

P a ge 1 of 3

In cour s e of hearing, it is brought to the notice of t h e Court that investigatio n was concluded with the submission of ch a rgesheet against the drive r of the offending vehicle. As a necessary c orollary, the contributory negligence vis-à-vis the rider, namely, de c eased is not established. I n absence of any such additional evidence a s against the chargesheet f iled, the contention of Mr. Dutta, learne d counsel for the appellan t Insurance Company on contributory negligence is not to be accept e d.

Learne d Tribunal assessed the monthly income at R s.7000/with respect to t he deceased in absence of any such evi d ence on record. Applying the minimum wages applicable at the relev a nt point of time, it is s u bmitted by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant Insura n ce Company that the income should h a ve been Rs.6000/- at the rate of Rs.200/- per day. Considering the fact that there has been no evidence on record regarding the mont h ly salary of the deceased, r ightly, therefore, it is claimed by Mr. Dutt a that the same should have been determined on the basis of daily w age and hence, applying the per day wage in the year2015 as per the Government not i fication at the rate of Rs.200/-, the monthl y income is arrived at Rs. 6 000/-. Furthermore, the additional future prospect at the rate of 5 0 %, as according to Mr. Dutta, is to be re d uced to 40%, which th e Court is inclined to accept. Considering the submissions of le a rned counsel for the respective parties and with the discussion as afo r esaid, the Court reaches at the conclusion that the compensation fo r an amount of Rs.12,09,600/- should be p a yable to the claimants r e spondent Nos. 1 to 5.The Court is als o of the conclusion that a n amount of Rs.70,000/- to be added o ver and above said am o unt towards non-peculiarly damages in s tead of Rs.1,00,000/- wi t h the total amount becomes Rs.12,79,600/- .

P a ge 2 of 3

7. Hence, It is ordered.

In the result, the appeal standsallowed in part. Consequently, th e impugned award dated 30^th June, 2017 p assed in M.A.C. Case No. 3 33 of 2015 by learned 7^th M.A.C.T., Bhuba n eswar is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to the appellant Insur a nce Company to deposit an am o unt of Rs.12,79,600/- along with theinterest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date o f claim application filed within eight we e ks from today, which sh a ll thereafter be disbursed in favour of the c laimants respondent Nos . 1 and 5. Furthermore, the Court di r ects the statutory deposi t along with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company on proof of such deposit made.

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

Rojina

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 10-Apr-2024 19:51:38

P a ge 3 of 3

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