The court affirmed enhanced compensation due to verified negligence in a motor vehicle accident, emphasizing the legitimacy of compensation assessments based on statutory requirements and proper evidence.

ORDER :

B.P.ROUTRAY, J.

MACA No.93 of 2022 and MACA No.262 of 2022

1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimants, Mr.P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. R. Behera, learned counsel for the owner.

2. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated 20.01.2022 of the learned 3^rd MACT, Cuttack in M.A.C. Case No.570 of 2015, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,71,994/- has been granted along with simple interest @6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 24.08.2015 on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident dated 25.06.2015, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. MACA No.93 of 2022 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement and MACA No.262 of 2022 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award.

4. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel submits for the insurer that the offending vehicle, i.e. TATA Magic bearing Registration No.OD-16-3043 has been implanted in the accident to manage the compensation. He further submits that initially in the FIR no such mention of the offending vehicle, but the Police submitted the charge-sheet against the said vehicle upon collusion with the claimants.

5. It is seen that the FIR was lodged immediately after the accident stating that one four wheeler vehicle was negligent for the cause of accident. Subsequently the Police upon investigation have collected the registration number of the offending vehicle and accordingly submitted the charge-sheet for commission of offences under Sections 279 /337/338/304-A, I.P.C. along with Section 187 of the M.V. Act against the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. P.W.2 is the eye-witness of the accident, who was also injured in the accident. He has categorically said in his evidence regarding negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and his evidence has been left un-rebutted. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of P.W.2 and the Police investigation report, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is established and as such, the contention raised by the Insurance Company against the same is rejected.

7. Next coming to the quantum of compensation, according to Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer, the same is erroneous and liable to be reduced. As per Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the claimants, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced by adding parental consortium to the son of the deceased.

8. It is seen that the deceased was aged about 52 years on the date of accident and he was serving as Manager (Civil) under Odisha Power General Corporation, IB Thermal Power Station, Banaharpali, Jharsuguda. He was getting monthly salary of Rs.1,14,500/-. The learned Tribunal calculated his income based on the amount mentioned in Form-16 for the financial year 2014-15 after deducting statutory amount. According to the submission of Mr. Mahali, the amount received towards thermal allowance, fuel allowance, medical reimbursement, manager allowance and newspaper allowance, totaling to Rs.78,672/- per annum is liable to be deducted from the income of the deceased.

9. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. , 2018 (4) T.A.C. 367 (SC) and Kalpanaraj and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation , (2015) 2 SCC 764 .

10. The submission of Mr. Mahali is found without merit. It is for the reason th