D.M., M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sambalpur Vs Sialata Kalsae

compensation as awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (R1 & 2) in the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2024 passed in MAC Case No.84 of 2022 by which the learned 1^st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balangir (In short, “the Tribunal”) has granted a sum of

¶14

Rs.19,47,080/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fourty-Seven

¶15

MACA No.753 of 2024 Page 1 of 8

¶16

Thousand Eighty) only to the claimants-R1 & 2 together with interest of 6% per annum w.e.f. 12.09.2022 as compensation for the death of one Nabakishore Kalsae (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in a motor vehicular accident.

¶17

2. Facts in precise are, on 16.03.2022 around about 3.00 to 3.30 PM one Truck bearing Regd. No.OD05P-3806 (Mixture and Grinding Machine) came being driven by its driver rash and negligently and dashed the deceased, who was standing near Manamunda (Deuli) Railway Bridge Construction Camp resulting in his death. On this accident, an FIR was lodged vide Manamunda PS Case No.56 of 2022, which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused driver of the offending vehicle for offences U/Ss.279/304-A of IPC. After the death of the deceased, his legal representatives-cum-R1 & 2 filed an application before the learned tribunal U/S.166 of the Act by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, which came to be registered as MAC Case No.84 of 2022 claiming Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees

¶18

MACA No.753 of 2024

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

Fifteen Lakhs) as a compensation for the death of their sole bread earner. According to the claimants-R1 & 2, the deceased was aged about 25 years old and was a motor cycle mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month then and they be compensated for the loss of their sole bread earner.

¶21

2.1. In response to the notice of claim, the owner of offending vehicle-R3 did not participate in the proceeding and he was set ex-parte by the learned tribunal. On the other hand, the appellant-insurer contested the claim by filing written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim application of R-1

¶22

& 2 and inter-alia disputing its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle-cum-R-3 for violation of policy conditions, while admitting valid insurance policy of the insured with its company at the relevant time of accident.

¶23

2.2 In support of their claim, the claimants-R1

¶24

& 2 examined the mother of the deceased and another independent witness as PWs.1 & 2 and relied upon the police papers of the accident case under Exts.1 to 10 as

¶25

MACA No.753 of 2024 Page 3 of 8

¶26

against no evidence whatsoever by the appellantinsurer.

¶27

3. After having gone through the evidence on record upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.19,47,080/- to the claimants-R1 & 2 proportionately. Being aggrieved, the insurer has preferred this appeal on various grounds inter-alia the quantum of compensation.

¶28

4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Ms. Sudhamayee Das, learned counsel for the appellant by confining his submission to the quantum of compensation prays to reduce the compensation on the ground of wrong assessment of the income of the deceased and exorbitant payment of consortium to the claimants.

¶29

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, learned counsel for the claimants-R1 & 2, however, seriously opposes the submission of the appellant by inter-alia contending that the income of the deceased

¶30

MACA No.753 of 2024

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

has been rightly assessed by the learned tribunal and, thereby, the compensation as awarded to the claimants cannot be reduced. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the claim. None appears for R-3 despite valid service of notice in this appeal.

¶33

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the main dispute between the parties is with regard to the quantum of compensation, which is calculated on the basis of income of the deceased, but since the appellant-insurer seriously disputes the assessment of the income of the deceased, this Court now adverts to the said point of the income of the deceased. The learned tribunal in his findings under Issue No.3 has taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.12,150/- per month on the basis of daily wages for a skilled labourer prevailing at the time of accident @ Rs.405/- per day, but the learned tribunal having assessed the income of the deceased as a skilled labourer which is not supported by any concrete evidence and the compensation being not a

¶34

MACA No.753 of 2024 Page 5 of 8

¶35

bounty or largesse, this Court takes the income of the deceased @ Rs.315/- per day as a unskilled labourer which was prevailing at the time of accident and, thereby, the monthly income of the deceased would be calculated at Rs.9,450/-. Hence, the annual income of the deceased would come around Rs.1,13,400/(Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred) and adding 40% towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others;

¶36

(2018) 69 OCR (SC) 1 , the net annual income of the deceased would come around Rs.1,58,760/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty). Since the deceased died as a bachelor and having parents as dependents, half of the aforesaid amount is required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and, therefore, the loss of dependency of the claimants-R1 per year would come to Rs.79,380/-. As the deceased was aged about 25 years age, the correct multiplier would be 18 and, accordingly, the total loss of dependency of claimant-

¶37

MACA No.753 of 2024

¶38

Page 6 of 8

¶39

mother would come around Rs.79,380/- x 18= Rs.14,28,840/-. In addition, the claimants-R1 & 2 are also entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- with increase of 10% per every three years under non-pecuniary head of damages of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium and, thereby, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards non-conventional heads in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) . Hence, claimants-R1 & 2 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,28,840/- + Rs.77,000/-= Rs.15,05,840/-. In addition, the claimants are also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim. The compensation is, accordingly, modified to the extent of Rs.15,05,840/together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 12.09.2022.

¶40

6. In the result, the claim appeal is allowed in part on contest, but there is no order as to costs. The impugned award of compensation is modified to the extent of Rs.15,05,840/- together with simple interest @ 6% w.e.f. 12.09.2022 which shall be deposited

¶41

MACA No.753 of 2024 Page 7 of 8

¶42

before the learned Tribunal within 60 days hence. However, the father being not the dependent, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- be paid to the claimant-father-cum-R2

¶43

out of the compensation amount and rest of the amount would be paid to the claimant-mother-cum-R1. It is made clear that 80% of the claim amount be paid to the claimants in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for 5 years and rest of 20% be released proportionately in favour of the claimants.

¶44

It is made clear that the statutory deposit

¶45

be refunded back to the appellant-insurer on proof of deposit of the modified compensation amount before the tribunal, who shall disburse the same in the manner as ordered above.

¶46

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶47

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Signature Not Verified Dated the 6^th day of January, 2025/Subhasmita

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Jan-2025 10:50:59 MACA No.753 of 2024

¶49

Page 8 of 8

D.M., M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sambalpur v. Sialata Kalsae

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M., M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sambalpur v. Sialata Kalsae

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Sahoo and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Madan Mohan Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Gangadhar Naik Vs Laxmipriya Behera

Kamakhya Pr.Herna Vs Regr.of Co-Operative

Rajib Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha