Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 380 (ORI)

Branch Manager v. Arati Mohanta

2006-05-12

L.MOHAPATRA

body2006
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : This appeal is directed against the award dated 20.7.2004 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No.120 of 2003 di¬recting payment of Rs.7,34,760/- towards compensation with inter¬est at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The claimant-respondents are the legal heirs of de¬ceased Umakanta Mohanta. The said Umakanta Mohanta was working as an A.S.I. in the Excise Department. In 18.3.2003 while he was traveling in motorcycle as a pillion rider from Bombay Chaka to Jamshala, the motor cycle slipped on the way and dashed against a Trolley-Rickshaw. The deceased Umakanta Mohanta fell down from the motor cycle and was pressed under it, resulting in head injury and other multiple injuries on the body. He was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Baripada for treatment and , thereafter referred to S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. On 19.3.2003 he succumbed to the said injuries. According to the claimant-respondents, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.7,060/- per month. 3. The owner of the motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the accident but took a stand that the motor cycle having been insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation. The appellant filed a separate written statement denying the accident and took a plea that there was a violation of policy condition. It was contended that the deceased contributed towards the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensa¬tion. 4. On pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues and examined three witnesses on behalf of the claimant-respondents. On analysis of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal held that driver was driving the motor cycle in a negli¬gent manner, as a result of which, the accident took place and caused the death of the deceased. 5. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took into consideration the gross income of the deceased at the time of accident and applied 13 multipliers and allowed compensa¬tion of Rs.7,34,760/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Miss. Rath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the award basically on two grounds :- i. the compensation could not be calculated on the basis of gross income of the deceased. ii. the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is excessive. 7. 6. Miss. Rath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the award basically on two grounds :- i. the compensation could not be calculated on the basis of gross income of the deceased. ii. the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is excessive. 7. So far as the first ground is concerned, from the discussion made in paragraph-9 of the award, it appears that the net income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.5,092/-. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposi¬tion that while calculating the compensation, the net income of the appellant is to be taken into the consideration. Admittedly, the net income of the deceased was Rs.5,092/- per month at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal illegally calculated the compensation taking into consideration the gross income of the deceased at Rs.7,060/-. I, therefore, find that there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. If the compensation is calculated on the basis of net income, applying the same multiplier as done by the Tribunal, the total compensation payable to the claimant-respondents comes to Rs.5,29,568/-. 8. So far as the 2nd ground is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that grant of 9% interest per annum is excessive. Learned counsel for the appel¬lant referred some decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court in order to substantiate her claim that the rate of interest should not be more than 6 to 7% . On perusal of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant,it appears that different rate of interest have been granted by different Courts varying from 6 to 12%. In the present case, accident took place in March, 2003. Even today lending rate of interest is 9% or more and, therefore, I am of the view that directing payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is not unreasonable. I, therefore, do not find any sub¬stance in the submission of the learned counsel in this regard. 9. In view of the discussions made, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.7,34,760/- to 5,29,568/- without any change in the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. From the records, it appears that an amount of Rs. I, therefore, do not find any sub¬stance in the submission of the learned counsel in this regard. 9. In view of the discussions made, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation is reduced from Rs.7,34,760/- to 5,29,568/- without any change in the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. From the records, it appears that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory deposit has been made before this Court and the same has been kept in fixed deposit. It is, there¬fore, directed that the said deposit along with accrued interest thereon be refunded to the appellant and the total compensation of Rs.5,29,568/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty nine thousand five hundred sixty eight) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit be furnished before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal partly allowed.