Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 221 (ORI)

Mithila Oram v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal

2016-03-17

BISWANATH RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This MACA arises out of an award passed by the District Judge-cum-Ist. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur in MAC Case No.146 of 2006 whereby the Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim at the instance of the claimants, granted a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One lakh Eighty thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application to be payable by Opp. party No.2-Insurance Company therein and with further observation regarding mode of distribution of the compensation amount. 2. Short facts involved in the case is that one Kshetra Oram (deceased in MAC Case No.146 of 2006) while travelling along with others in a Max Pickup Van bearing registration No.0R-23-A-2336 from Hemgir to Belpahar on 01.7.2006 at about 3.30 P.M, met with road accident. The deceased sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased, in filing the Claim Application contended that the deceased was working as a Coolli and was earning Rs.2500/-per month. For the untimely death of the deceased, they claimed a sum of Rs.4,00.000/-(Rupees Four lakhs) as indicated in Clause21 of the Claim Application. The Claim Application is resisted by the owner and insurer appearing as Opp.party Nos.1 and 2.The owner admitted the accident and pleaded that the vehicle being insured, the Opp.party No.2 is liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company in its counter denied its liability to pay taking the pleas in respect of no liability in the matter. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur disposed of the Claim Case with the following order: “The Misc. Case is allowed on contest. The petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only)together with interest at the rate of 6% pr annum from the date of application (i.e.11.9.2006), that too from the Opposite Party No.2.The O.P.No.2 is directed to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners within two months hence. Out of such compensation amount, a sum of Rs.80,000/-jointly in the names of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and a sum of Rs.40,000/-jointly in the names of petitioner Nos.5 & 6 be kept in fixed deposits for five years in any Nationalised Bank from which no premature withdrawal is allowable without further orders of the Court. The rest amount with interest be paid to the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 in the shape of cash. The rest amount with interest be paid to the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 in the shape of cash. The Court Fees, in the Misc.Case, if not earlier paid, be deducted from such amount.” 3. In assailing the aforesaid impugned award, the claimants-appellants in their appeal claimed that even though they had made a specific claim before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a Cooli and was earning a sum of Rs.2500/-per month and supported the said claim by leading sufficient evidence, the Claims Tribunal erroneously put the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per annum and consequently granted lower compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand). 4. It is in these premises, Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the earning of the deceased has been decided by the Claims Tribunal at extremely lower side and the amount of compensation should be increased taking into consideration the materials available on record. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Laxmi Devi and Others vrs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, reported in 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), Mr Satpathy, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted looking to the facts and back ground of the reported judgment that the judgment of the reported case is squarely applicable to the case of the appellants. Consequently the claimants-appellants are entitled to salary at least @ of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) per month and the compensation amount is required to be appropriately enhanced. 5. Mr.Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on the other hand submitted that the Insurance Company had resisted the claim on the premises of no valid Driving License and therefore after receiving the notice in the present matter, the Insurance Company has filed a Cross Appeal which should be taken into consideration and considering the fact that there is no valid license of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the liability of the Insurance Company should be shifted on the head of the owner of the vehicle. 6. 6. Mr.Routray, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle resisted the claim of the Insurance Company and by producing the Driving License of Gopal Ch.Kalo (Ext.A) submitted that in view of specific indication in the Driving License regarding its validity, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, are wrong and since D.L. is valid, the liability ought to be saddled on the Insurance Company. 7. Perused the pleadings of the parties before the Claims Tribunal as well as the evidence at the instance of the claimants and cross-examination at the instance of the respective Opp. parties in the Claim Case. 8. From the whole reading of the above, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the deceased working as a Cooli. The claimants have been able to satisfy the court that the deceased was earning Rs.2500/-per month. At this stage, it is required to look into the decision cited at the Bar involving similar issue and as reported in the case between Laxmi Devi and Others vrs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, in 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC), in considering the case of similar nature, the Hon’ble Apex Court while deprecating the view of the High Courts, fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-per annum considering the fact that the accident in the said case had taken place in the year 2004 and fixed the notional income at Rs.36,000/-(Rupees Thirty-six Thousand) per annum i.e. Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) per month. This Court finds the judgment cited at the Bar is squarely applicable to the case of the present appellants for the reason of involvement of the accident in the year 2006. 9. Now coming to the question of validity of the Driving License, this Court perused the D.L available on record at Ext.A. The D.L has the following clear endorsement: “Authorized to drive light transport vehicle only w.e.f. 29.4.2006 to 28.4.2009.” Accident in the present case occurred on 01.7.2006. So on perusal of the D.L vide Ext.A, it clearly transpires that the accident had taken place during validity of the Driving license. 10. So on perusal of the D.L vide Ext.A, it clearly transpires that the accident had taken place during validity of the Driving license. 10. Under the circumstances, while refusing to entertain the Cross Appeal of the Insurance Company, this Court allows the present MACA and directs the following: Taking the salary of the deceased Rs.36,000/-(Rupees Thirty six Thousand) per annum and applying the multiplier ‘17’, it comes to Rs.6,12,000/-(Rupees six lakhs twelve thousand). Deducting 20% towards personal expenditure i.e. Rs.1,22,400/-(|Rupees one lakh twenty two thousand four hundred) the net compensation comes to Rs.4,89,600/-Rupees four lakhs eighty nine thousand six hundred). Appellants are also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum till award and @ 7% per annum from award till payment. The compensation amount and interest will be calculated within a period of two weeks and after deducting the amount already paid, the balance amount will be released in favour of the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent herein above. However; there is no order as to cost.