The court affirmed the use of established income calculation methods for dependency damages, adjusting the compensation award to Rs.16,45,965/- including considerations for future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT:

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal U/S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) by the appellant-insurer challenging the quantum of compensation as awarded to Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.50 of 2020 by which the learned 2^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (In short, “the Tribunal”) has granted a sum of Rs.18,79,660/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) only to the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 together with interest of 7% per annum w.e.f. 24.01.2020 as compensation for the death of one Prafulla Kumar Behera in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Facts in precise are, on 31.12.2019 at about 8.30 AM one Truck bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AN- 3251 came with a high speed being driven rash and negligently by its driver and dashed one Prafulla Kumar Behera (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who was standing on the extreme left side of the road at Kushupur Bazar Chhak resulting in his death. On this accident, an FIR was lodged vide Mahanga PS Case No.01 of 2020, which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused driver of the offending Truck for offences U/S.279/304 of IPC. After the death of the deceased, his legal representatives- cum-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed an application before the learned tribunal U/S.166 of the Act by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, which came to be registered as Misc. Case No.50 of 2020 claiming compensation for the death of their sole bread earner. According to the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5, the deceased was aged about 35 years old and was a mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month then and they be compensated for the loss of their sole bread earner.

2.1. In response to the notice of Misc. Case No.50 of 2020, the owner of offending vehicle- Respondent No.6 did not participate in the proceeding and he was set ex-parte by the learned tribunal vide its order passed on 16.02.2023, however, the appellant- insurer contested the claim of the claimants by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application and inter-alia disputing its liability to compensate the claimants. Basing on the rival claims, the learned tribunal struck four issues including the main issue of cause of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the entitlement of the claimants as well as the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. In support of their claim, the claimants examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and exhibited the police papers of the accident case under Exts.1 to 10 as against the documentary evidence of copy of the insurance policy under Exts.A and B with no oral evidence by the appellant-insurer.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the evidence on record, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.18,79,660/- to the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5 proportionately. Being aggrieved, the insurer has preferred this appeal on various grounds inter-alia the quantum of compensation.

4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. S.J. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant by confining his submission to the quantum of compensation prays to reduce the compensation on the ground of wrong assessment of the income of the deceased and exorbitant payment of consortium to the claimants-Respondents.

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5, however, does not dispute about the excess award of consortium to the claimants, but he, however, submits that the income of the deceased has been rightly assessed and, thereby, the compensation