MACA/429/2021 of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs SAROJINI BAL on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026 Order No.

09.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant. Despite valid service of notice on the Owner-Respondent No.5. None appears on behalf of such Respondent. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has also filed a cross-objection without taking any steps for limitation. Thus, the cross-objection, being barred by limitation, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is not taken into consideration while disposing of the present appeal.

4. By filing in this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Appellant-Insurance Company seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed in MAC Case No.1478 of 2014 by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company challenging both the liability of the Insurance Company as well as the quantum of compensation. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.30,35,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the Appellant- Insurance Company has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

6. Mr. S. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant- Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that the accident from which the present appeal arises has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased who was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident which occurred on 29.10.2014 at about 8:00 P.M. While the deceased, namely, Prafulla Kumar Bal, was travelling in the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.OD-04-D-3487 belonging to the Respondent No.5, he met with the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital and, while undergoing treatment at the hospital, he passed away. Subsequently, the claimants of the deceased has approached The Tribunal by filing the application under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for such death in the aforesaid motor accident. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended before this Court that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. He further contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle alone and there was no other pillion rider. On the fateful day due to the negligence of the rider, the vehicle in question met with an accident and passed away. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that since such careless driving is the fault of the driver, the insurance condition is violated and, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

7. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, has not properly appreciated to the evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, further referring to the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased as well as the deposition of such employer submitted before this Court that the income of the deceased, as claimed in the application filed before the Tribunal, has not been properly established. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error by accepting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. He further submitted that the salary certificate reveals that the deceased was working as a Stabilizer Mechanic on part time basis, three days a week, and he was getting Rs.15,000/- per month excluding TA and DA. In the said context, he also referred to the cross-examination of the employer, examined as P.W.5 before the learned Tribunal and contended before this Court that the employer has failed to reveal the required documents as is required to maintain statutorily. In such factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the fixation of liability on the Insurance Company and the fixation of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- is absolutely erroneous and unsustainable in law. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be re-visited by this Court in the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant, on the other hand, submitted before this Court that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the monthly income of the Petitioner. He further contended that such income does not reflect the real income of the deceased and, for which, a cross-objection was filed by the Claimants. However, such cross-objection became invalid as the same was not filed within the statutory period. It was also contended by the Claimant-Respondent that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- even though it was claimed in the claim application that the deceased’s income was Rs.30,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.15,000/- as salary income and Rs.15,000/- from his contractual business. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent submitted before this Court that the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, on a careful analysis of the rival contention and the factual backdrop of the present case as well as the materials on record and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed in the abovenoted MAC case, this Court found that the only issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal by taking into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/-. On perusal of the certificate as well as the deposition of the employer. it appears that the deceased was employed on a part time basis and he was working for three days in a week as a Stabilizer Mechanic. Such certificate has been issued in the year 2014. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the additional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, as has been claimed in the claim application before the Tribunal and which the deceased was earning from his contractual business. It is true that there is no clear evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. However, it is not disputed that the deceased was working as a Stabilizer Mechanic at the relevant point of time and that he was employed by his employer, who has been examined as P.W.5 in the present case.

10. On a careful analysis of the background facts of the present case, on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the present appeal can be disposed of amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Accordingly, this Court suggested the learned counsels appearing for the Parties to make an attempt to settle. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Claimant contended that he will satisfied in the event the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and a total compensation amount of Rs.19,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum is awarded in favour of the Claimant-Respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company on the other hand left the matter to the discretion of the Court and submitted that the Appellant-Insurance Company shall accept any amount of compensation that will be deemed just and proper by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. On a careful analysis of the factual background as well as the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that a total compensation amount Rs.19,60,000/-, taking into account the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-, would be just, fair and proper. Such suggestion of this Court was accepted by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Accordingly the present appeal is being disposed of by modifying the quantum of compensation to a consolidated sum of Rs.19,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till realization of the actual amount. Let the modified amount along with interest be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks, if the same has not been already deposited. Subject to production of an acknowledgement evidencing the deposit of the aforesaid money and on application be filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, the Registry shall return the statutory amount along with accrued interest in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company, On deposit of such modified compensation amount, the learned Tribunal shall proceed to disburse the same in favour of the Claimant- Respondent in accordance with law and as per the names indicated in the impugned judgment.

12. With the aforesaid modification and observation, the appeal stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Sisir

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 03-Sep-2026 16:51:09 Signature Not Verified