MACA/175/2007 of GEETANJALI MOHAPATRA Vs RANJAN SAHA,HARI SAH on 3 September 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company.

2. On perusal of the record, it appears that although notice was issued to the Respondent No.1-owner, however, the same has been received back by the office with a postal endorsement “No such Area in APRC

S.O”. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Appellants at this stage that the Respondent No.1-owner was set ex-parte in the Tribunal and he did not contest. Considering the fact that the claimants-Appellants have approached this Court with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount and no challenge being made by either side to the fixation of the liability, this Court is of the view that notice on Respondent No.1-owner need not be served as he is not likely to be affected by the outcome of this judgment. Perused the appeal memo as well as the ground taken therein.

3. Filing the present appeal under section 173 of the MV Act, the claimants-Appellants seek to challenge the judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.30 of 2004. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,17,500/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of appearance of Opposite Party No.2 till realization of the amount. The factual background leading to the filing of the claim case before the Tribunal, in short, is that on 21.12.2003 at about 4:00 P.M. near OSWAL Chhak, Paradeep, while the deceased was coming by riding a cycle, a Dumper bearing Registration No.OR-06-3604 collided against the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, initially approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation. It has been stated in the claim application that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of his death and that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month as he was working as a driver at the relevant point of time. The offending vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed in the claim application.

4. The learned Tribunal after taking evidence and upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, allowed the claim application. However, a total compensation amount of Rs.2,17,500/- along with interest @ 6% has been awarded in favor of the Appellants-claimants. Being aggrieved by such quantum of compensation, the Appellants- claimants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants while challenging the impugned award, at the outset, contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the monthly as well as the consequential annual income of the deceased. It was also submitted before this Court that although the deceased was aged about 32 years, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a legal error by not awarding future prospect in favor of the claimants. Similarly, it was also urged before this Court that only Rs.9,000/- has been awarded under the head of general damages. Being aggrieved by such erroneous assessment of the compensation amount by the Tribunal, the Appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds as has been narrated in the appeal memo. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal is not in conformity with the established principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments concerning issues similar to the ones involved in the present appeal. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the total compensation amount is required to be enhanced.

6. With regard to the calculation of the income of the deceased, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month and, accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd from his total income, the annual contribution of the deceased towards his family has been assessed at Rs.16,000/-. He further contended that a wrong multiplier has been applied by taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 40 to 45 years.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, wholeheartedly supported the award dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal at Annexure-1. While supporting the determination and fixation of the total compensation amount, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company contended before this Court that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month as he was working as a driver. It was also contended that the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the deceased was aged about 40-45 years. Accordingly, the multiplier 13 has been applied. He further contended that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence adduced during trial and on the basis of the case made out by the claimants before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the judgment dated 22.11.2006 and awarding a total compensation amount of Rs.2,17,500/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the appeal preferred by the Appellants-claimants is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of the rival contentions, further on a close scrutiny of the factual background of the present case, as well as the materials on record, and on a careful examination of the impugned award dated 22.11.2006, this Court prime facie observes that the determination of the total compensation by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous. Therefore, the same is required to be examined in the present appeal by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several of its judgments. So far the income of the deceased is concerned, it appears that the claimants have taken a specific ground that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-. However, the same has been disbelieved by the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellants while emphasizing on the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/-, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout & Anr. vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. decided in Civil Appeal No.7368 of 2013 reported in 2013 (II) OLR (SC) 811. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Appellants contended that in a case of similar nature, where the deceased was also a driver of a private vehicle, belonged to the same locality and the accident occurred almost during the same timeline, the salary of the deceased was assessed to be Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact that the post of driver is a skilled job. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as confirmed in appeal by this Court, was modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by taking into consideration the income of the deceased driver’s salary at Rs.6,000/-. So far the case of the present Petitioner is concerned, it appears that although the claimants raised a claim of monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-, she has not been able to establish the same by adducing cogent evidence.

10. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, and taking note of the determination of the salary by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the salary of the deceased as a driver in a private vehicle would not have been less than

Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, this Court holds that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.36,000/-. Deducting 1/4th of the total annual income, the rest amount would be the sum which the deceased would have contributed to his family, i.e. Rs.27,000/-.

11. So far the application 13 multiplier by the learned Tribunal is concerned, this Court is of the view that the same is also incorrect. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the multipliers to be applied for various age ranges. Now, if the finding of the Tribunal is accepted that the deceased was aged about 40-45 years, the learned Tribunal should have applied 14 multiplier, as applicable to ages 41-45 as per Sarla Verma’s case (supra), instead of 13 multiplier. Thus, this Court holds that the Appellants-claimants are entitled to the total compensation amount assessed after applying 14 multiplier instead of 13 multiplier. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is found to be incorrect and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.

12. So far the loss of future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount in that respect. In the context of loss of future prospects, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein the law with regard to loss of future prospects with regard to the age category of 40 to 50 years has been categorically laid down. In the category of self- employed persons, an addition of 25% of the total income is to be made on that score. Thus, this Court holds that the learned Tribunal has not applied the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) so far as the loss of future prospects is concerned. Accordingly, the fixation of the quantum of total compensation is held to be bad in law.

13. The Tribunal has also committed a mistake by awarding Rs.9,500/- under the general damages category. As has been held in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to a fixed general damages of Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.9,500/-, as has been prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the award on account of general damages is also required to be modified by keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

14. Taking into consideration the analysis made hereinabove, further keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court both in Sarala Verma’s case (supra) as well as in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation calculated hereunder;

Heads Amount (in Rs.)

Total Annual Income 36,000/- -

Deduction (1/4th of Annual Income) 9,000/-

Total 27,000/- +

Loss of Future prospect=25% of Annual Income 9,000/-

Total 36,000/-

Compensation amount after applying the multiplier ‘14 to the Total Amount of Rs.36,000/- 5,04,000/- +

General Damage 70, 000/-

Total compensation amount 5,74,000/-

Accordingly, this Court holds that the Appellants are entitled to get a total compensation amount of Rs.5,74,000/-. Since, the Respondent- Insurance Company has already satisfied the awarded amount to the tune of Rs.2,17,000/-, the same is required to be deducted. After deducting the amount which has already been paid to the claimants, the claimants are entitled to get a further enhanced compensation of Rs.3,57,000/- in the manner as has been calculated hereinabove. Therefore, this Court holds that the Appellants-claimants are entitled to get Rs.3,57,000/- along with interest @ 6% w.e.f. the date of claim application. Since, the appeal is pending before this Court from the year 2007, taking into consideration the fact that the insurance companies are handling public money and that the extra burden on account of interest cannot be entirely saddled on the Insurance Company, this Court is of the considered view that a consolidated amount be paid towards the interest on the aforesaid additional compensation. Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent- Insurance Company to deposit the further consolidated amount of Rs.6,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court. On depositing such amount and on the claimants being identified by their conducting counsel, the Registry shall release the compensation amount in their favour in terms of the award.

15. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 3rd September, 2026/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2026 09:37:07 Signature Not Verified