Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V.NARASINGH, J.
Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Now represented through the Sr. Executive (Legal) and Authorised Signatory – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Namita Barik – Respondent
MACA No.366 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Singh, Advocate
The assessment of compensation based on the deceased's income must reflect reality and be grounded in established law; the Tribunal's findings were upheld.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163(A) and 166 - Compensation for death in vehicular accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,53,000/- with 7.5% interest; Insurance Company appealed against the tribunal’s assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Issues included entitlement to compensation and liability. The court found the assessment of the deceased's income as reasonable and upheld the award. (Paras 3, 12, 14)
(B) Just Compensation - The court emphasized the doctrine of just compensation and found that the Tribunal's assessment of income was rational. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The claimant's husband died in a motorcycle accident due to rash driving, and the claimants sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act citing a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The owner of the motorcycle was set ex parte. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The insurance company was held liable to pay Rs.8,53,000/- as compensation and interest was modified to 6%. (Paras 14, 15)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and the appropriate amount; the liability of the owner or the insurance company. (Paras 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessment of income should be grounded in reality and the Tribunal's conclusion was not irrational. The insurance company was liable to pay the awarded compensation. (Paras 14, 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed; compensation upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relevance of compensation claim and events leading to it. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disputes regarding income calculation and liability for compensation. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of tribunal's subjective evaluation of income and compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final ruling on compensation and interest payment procedures. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
V. Narasingh, J.
The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned IIIrd MACT, Balasore, in M.A.C. Case No.51 of 2013, awarding compensation of Rs.8,53,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 11.02.2013, till the date of payment on account of the death of one Panchanan Barik, the husband of Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. The LRs of the deceased- Panchanan Barik, by filing the application under Sections 163 (A) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act), claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of Panchanan Barik in the vehicular accident. To substantiate their claim, it was inter alia stated in the claim petition that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 35 years old and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing carpentry and Rs.1,000/- from his own agricultural land.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 25.12.2012, while one Panchanan Barik (since deceased), along with others, was waiting to board a bus at Gohira Simulia around 5.30 P.M., a motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-01-S-1679 coming at high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against three persons along with the deceased causing severe bleeding injuries on Panchanan Barik’s head and chest.
Thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital. While he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries.
As such, a claim application was filed claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, as noted above.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle was arrayed as Opposite Party No.1 and the Insurer-Appellant (M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) as Opposite Party No.2. The owner did not contest and was set ex parte vide order dated 08.07.2013.
5. The Insurance Company-Appellant (Opposite Party No.2), contested the case and filed its written statement resisting the claim.
On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed;
“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount?
2. Whether the owner or the insurance company is liable to pay compensation?
3. To what relief, the petitioners are entitled for?”
6. In order to substantiate their stand, the widow Respondent No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one occurrence witness was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the Claimants and several documents were also exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 12.
The Appellant-Insurance Company examined one witness as O.P.W.1 and exhibited documents marked as Exts.A to E.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. A.A. Khan submits that since the application was filed under Section 163 (A) of the M.V. Act, even assuming that the Appellant-Insurance Company is held to be liable to pay compensation, the annual income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.40,000/- as per the Second Schedule and as such the Tribunal committed an error in treating the income of the deceased as Rs.72,000/-.
8. It is further urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, in the absence of any material on record, the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident on 25.12.2012, i.e., Rs.150/- per day, ought to have been taken as the income and there being no basis for the learned Tribunal to assess the income at Rs.6,000/-, the consequential quantification is liable to be set aside and in this context he relies
