MACA/1290/2025 of ALUGULU RAJ KUMARI DORA Vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GANJAM on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026 Order No.

02.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-Appellants, at the outset, files a memo indicating therein that the Appellant No.2, namely, Alugulu Pantulu @ Patulu Dora has died on 29.12.2025. The memo further reveals that the legal heirs of the deceased- Appellant No.2 are already on record.

3. The memo is accepted and taken on record. Accordingly, the name of Appellant No.2 be deleted from the appeal record.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the claimant-Appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-

Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed in MAC No.67 of 2023 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-8th MACT, Aska, Ganjam.

5. The factual background of the claimant-Appellants’ case, in short, is that on 26.06.2023, around 6 AM, while the deceased was returning to his village, on the State Highway, by riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.OD-07-AL-7118, he met with an accident near Reliance Tower at village Borda. The offending vehicle, a bus, was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the vehicle. As a result of the accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at CHC, Badagada where he was shifted to for his treatment. A police case was initiated with the registration of Badagada P.S Case No.299 dated 26.06.2023 under Sections 279/304-A of IPC. In the said police case, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted.

6. The claimant-Appellants, who are the family members of the deceased, approached the Tribunal by filing the abovenoted MAC No.67 of 2023 claiming a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road accident. In the claim application, the claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a Senior Electrician in D.D Builders Ltd., Bhubaneswar and he was getting salary of Rs.26,800/- per month. The pleadings further reveal that the offending vehicle was plying with valid documents including a valid insurance.

7. Despite valid service of notice on the owner of the vehicle, the Respondent No.1-Owner did not appear before the learned

Tribunal. As a result, he was set ex-parte vide order dated 22.01.2025. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence from the side of the claimants as well as the insurance company awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,12,040/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment awarding a lower compensation, the claimants have approached this Court with a prayer for enhancement of the awarded amount.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-Appellants, at the outset, contended that the quantum of compensation has been assessed by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.10,350/-, result in the computation of a lower compensation amount, which has seriously caused prejudiced to the claimants. He further contended that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed and that the impugned award has caused injustice to the family of the deceased, who are the claimants- Appellants before this Court.

9. While assailing the quantum of compensation fixed by the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the claimants-Appellants submitted before this Court that the deceased was working as a Senior Electrician with a construction company. It was further submitted that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.26,800/- per month. However, such income of the deceased, as has been pleaded in the claim application, has been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased to fix the total quantum of compensation. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality by assessing the income of the deceased notionally by taking into consideration the total income of the deceased to be Rs.10,350/- that is @ Rs.345/- per day and, as such, the Tribunal has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,24,000/-. With regard to the application of the 16 multiplier in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 43 OCR (SC) 349. Learned counsels appearing for both sides have no objection to the same.

10. The only dispute that survives for determination in the present appeal is with regard to the fixation of the monthly as well as annual income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants-Appellants contended that although it was pleaded and proved that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.26,800/- which he was getting as salary from the company where he was employed, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the same and taken a lower income on notional basis by calculating the income of the deceased @ Rs.345/- per day as a labour.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported such finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased and the method adopted by the learned Tribunal to arrive at the monthly as well as the annual income of the deceased. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company contended that the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

12. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of their submissions as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned award as well as the materials on record, this Court found that the only issue that falls for determination in the present appeal is with regard to the fixation of the income of the deceased and the consequential award of the compensation. The claim application it has been pleaded that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.26,800/- per month. The same was disputed by the Insurance Company. Taking into consideration the aforesaid dispute, the learned Tribunal adopted the notional method of fixation of the income and, accordingly, calculated the monthly income of the deceased by taking into consideration the daily wages as is prescribed by the government notification @ Rs.345/- per day at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.10,350/- per month and Rs.1,24,200/- per annum.

13. This Court, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case as well as the materials on record, found that the deceased was an Electrician, who was engaged by a construction company. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the deceased had acquired some skill in the electrical field. Such finding of this Court is confirmed by the fact that he was hired by a construction company for the purpose of electricity. Thus, there is no doubt that the deceased is entitled to a much higher daily wage that the rate at which it had been calculated by the learned Tribunal on a notional basis. Viewing the matter from the aforesaid angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by notionally fixing the income of the deceased @

Rs.10,350/- per month. Taking into consideration the fact that at the relevant point of time, the daily wage for the skilled category of labourer was Rs.423/- per day. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is re-fixed @ Rs.12,690/-. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is hereby re-fixed @ Rs.1,52,280/-. By applying the multiplier ‘16’ to the annual income of the deceased which has been re-fixed @ Rs.1,52,280/-, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.24,36,480/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting 50% from his total income, the net total income of the deceased per annum would come to Rs.12,18,240/-. With the aforesaid amount, the loss of future prospect @ 40% is to be added. Accordingly, the total figure comes to Rs.17,05,536/-. To the aforesaid amount, the general damage to be added @ Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the total amount would be Rs.17,75,536/-. Therefore, the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.17,75,536/-.

14. It is stated by learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- Insurance Company that a total sum of Rs.16,84,040/-, including the interest, has been paid, out of which the total awarded amount is Rs.15,12,040/-. In view of the above it is clear that the interest element has already been taken care of and the same has already been paid to the claimants. Therefore, out of the total amount of Rs.17,75,536/-, a total amount of Rs.15,12,040/- is to be deducted and the balance amount comes to Rs.2,63,496/-, which may be rounded off to Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall pay a further consolidated sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Appellant No.1 within a period of eight weeks. Since the interest amount has already been

paid, the same is hereby waived.

15. With the aforesaid modification, the Appeal stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Aug-2026 19:21:56 Signature Not Verified