AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. P. Routray, J
Heard Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. G. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants.
Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment dated 05.11.2021 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Cuttack in M.A.C. Case No.418 of 2017 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.9,52,300/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.20.06.2017 on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident dated 03.10.2016.
Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurer submits that despite the vehicle was not involved in the accident, the same has been implanted to manage the compensation.
Upon hearing Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants and perusal of the evidence of OPW-1 & 2, it reveals that taking advantage of non-mention of particular registration number of the vehicle in the FIR and based on the personal investigation of OPW-2, such a plea has been taken by the insurer against the claim of the applicants. It is true that copy of the FIR dated 3.10.2016 speaks one unknown truck caused the accident by rash and negligent driving. But the fact remains that the Police upon investigation found out the offending vehicle and submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the said vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-29-B-2486. The evidence of the eye-witness-P.W.2 supports the same. The insurer has not examined any direct witness, who has seen the accident to deny the involvement of the present offending vehicle. The evidence of the investigator, who admittedly is not an eye-witness and gained his knowledge from the statement of others, cannot substantiate their contention that the present vehicle is not involved in the accident. Thus upon thorough scrutiny of the evidence adduced from both the sides, copies of which were produced by the counsel for the Appellant in course of hearing, the preponderance is found heavier in favour of the claimants to conclude the negligence on the part of the driver of the present offending vehicle. As such, the contention raised in this regard by the Appellant is rejected.
It is next submitted by the Appellant that the compensation has been counted on higher side by taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month though the rate of minimum wages prescribed on the date of accident was Rs.200/- per day.
Admittedly, as per the claim of the applicants the deceased was having income of Rs.10,000/- per month from a Sweet Stall. The claimants failed to prove their contention through documentary evidence. Thus the learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.7000/- by guess work. Learned Tribunal has further observed that such assessment is commensurating with prevailing daily wage rate. But the fact remains that as per the Government Notification dated 24th July, 2015 in SRO No.323/2015, the daily wage rate for unskilled labourer is at Rs.200/- per day plus Rs.7.20 paise towards DA.
Considering said aspect of daily wage rate prevailing on the date of accident, a reduced compensation of Rs.8,75,000/- along with 6% interest is proposed to the parties in course of hearing. Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4 agrees to the same and Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company leaves it to the discretion of the Court. The compensation amount is accordingly fixed to that extent. However, the penal interest @12% is waived.
In the result, the Appellant – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the reduced compensation of Rs.8,75,000/- (rupees eight lakhs seventy-five thousand) before the Tribunal along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.20.06.2017 within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on such terms and proportion contained in the direction of the Tribunal.
On deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund application before this Court, the statutory deposit made before this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant-Insurance Company.
The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
…………………………