SARI DAS vs U.I.I.CO.LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.862 of 2010

CNR No. ODHC010038192010

(An appeal Under Section-173 of MV Act, 1988).

Sari Das & Ors. Appellants
…
-versus-

The Branch Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Another
… Respondents



For Appellants : Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3,
Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate

(R1)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:10.11.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, “the Act”) by the claimants-
appellants seeking enhancement of compensation
granted to them by the impugned judgment dated
13.08.2010 passed by the learned Second Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(SD), Berhampur
(In short, “the
Tribunal”) in MAC No.356/02 (644/99) directing R-1-cum-
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short “the insurer”) to

MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 1 of 8

pay Rs.1,83,000/- together with Simple Interest @ 6%
per annum w.e.f.13.10.1999 till actual realization to the
claimants within two months thence, failing which to pay
default interest @ 9% per annum as compensation in an
application U/S.166 of the Act for the death of their sole
bread earner in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal
are that in an accident which took place on 28.04.1999 at
about 11.00AM, one Kirtan Das (hereinafter referred to as
“the deceased”) while going by a bicycle near Green-gola
Chhaka of Konkorada village, was allegedly dashed from
the back side by one bus bearing Regd. No.OSG-7009
(Balkumari Bus) [hereinafter referred to as “the offending
vehicle”] resulting in death of deceased at the spot. An
FIR being filed on this incident came to be registered with
the local police station which resulted in submission of
charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle
for rash and negligent driving. Upon a claim being filed by
the LRs of the deceased, the learned tribunal registered

MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 2 of 8

and proceeded with the same by issuing notices to the
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
2.1. In response of the notice of the claim, the
owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest
the claim and consequently he was set ex-parte, whereas
the insurer contested the claim by filing the written
statement denying all the allegations and inter-alia
disowning its liability to pay the compensation. The
learned tribunal, however, allowed the parties to lead
evidence and accordingly, the claimants examined two
witnesses and relied upon seven documents under Ext.1
to 7 as against the documentary evidence of Ext. A & B
by the insurer. On conclusion of inquiry, the learned
tribunal after appreciating the evidence upon hearing the
parties passed the impugned judgment granting
compensation to the claimants indicated (supra), but the
claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mohanty,
MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 3 of 8

learned counsel for R-1 and perused the record. The
notice against R-2 could not be issued due to incomplete
filing of requisites by the appellants. Since R-2 was set
ex-parte in the proceeding before the learned tribunal
and the appeal being of the year 2010, the notice against
R-2 stands dispensed with in view of the provision under
Order XLI Rule 14(4) of the CPC.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and upon perusal of record, since the quantum of
compensation is seriously challenged by the appellants-
claimants, this Court straight away advert to the finding
of the learned tribunal with regard to determination/
computation of the compensation. It is found from the
record that the learned tribunal has considered the
deceased to be a daily laborer and by applying a
minimum wages, his monthly income was taken at
Rs.1,500/- per month at the relevant time of his death on
28.04.1999, but Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, however, seriously
challenges such finding by taking this Court to the
relevant observation of the learned tribunal discarding

MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 4 of 8

the documentary evidence of Exhibit 5 & 6 which are
photocopy of some documents stated to be the salary
certificate of the deceased. It is, accordingly, found that
the learned tribunal in paragraph 9 of the impugned
judgment while not accepting Ext.5 & 6 towards income
of the deceased has inter alia observed as under: -
“The petitioners have pleaded in the claim
application that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month from coal mining service. To
support the same PW.1 has stated in her evidence
that the deceased was contributing Rs.5,000/- per
month for family maintenance and PW.2 has said
that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.5000/- to
Rs.6000/- per month. Both PWs.1 & 2 say that the
deceased was working as a labourer in a coal field.
In her cross PW.1 has admitted that the documents
regarding working of the deceased have been
destroyed. To further substantiate their case two,
xerox slips have been filed by the petitioners
regarding salary of the deceased. But those
documents have no evidentiary value for the reason
that the same can be easily manipulated not being
originals and hence discarded from evidence. Again,
a photograph of the deceased has been filed by the
petitioners to show that he was a quarry worker, but
due to lack of sufficient proof, the same cannot be
relied on. Therefore, it appears that except the oral
testimony adduced by the petitioners, there is no
other reliable document placed on record by the
petitioners. The very statement of PWs.1 & 2 cannot
satisfactorily establish the income of the deceased.
Though OP No.2 has not adduced any rebuttal
evidence to disprove the income of the deceased,
but the petitioners owe their prima-facie duty to
MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 5 of 8

establish the income of the deceased as Rs.5000/-
per month, which they have failed. But it is the
consistent case of the petitioners that, the deceased
was working as labourer prior to his death. Taking
into account the rate of minimum wages prescribed
during the year 1999, the monthly income of the
deceased can be assessed at Rs.1500/.”

5. Had the deceased been employed somewhere
and been issued with salary slips, the claimants could
have examined the employer or they could have even
taken steps to summon the employer for proof of the
monthly income of the deceased, but they have not done
so. Right now, the appellants have not been able to
produce any documents to show that the deceased was
gainfully employed with somewhere and was getting
salary of Rs.5,000/-. In absence of any proof of income of
the deceased and concrete evidence with regard to his
avocation and income, the learned tribunal has rightly
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-, but
probably due to oversight, it has omitted to add any
amount towards future prospect to the determined
income of the deceased while computing the
compensation. Since the deceased was aged about 45

MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 6 of 8

years, an addition of 25% to the determined income of
the deceased can be considered. Adding 25% of
Rs.1,500/- = Rs.375/- to it, the net income of the
deceased would come Rs.1,500/- + Rs.375/- =
Rs.1,875/- at the relevant time of accident. Computing
the compensation by taking the income of the deceased
rd
@ Rs.1875/- per month and deducting 1/3 from it
towards personal living expenses, the net loss of
dependency of the claimant would come around
rd
Rs.1875/- – Rs.625/- (1/3 of Rs.1875/-) = Rs.1,250/- x
12 x 14 = Rs.2,10,000/-. Adding a consolidated sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards general damages, the net
compensation to which the appellants claimants are
entitled would come to Rs.50,000/- + Rs.2,10,000/-=
Rs.2,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to
simple interest @6% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of
the claim application till its actual realization. Further, the
finding of the learned tribunal with regard to giving
recovery of right to the insurer having not challenged by
the owner and the claimants, the same remains
confirmed. It is further contended by Mr. Santosh Kumar
MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 7 of 8

Mohanty, learned counsel for R-1 that the award has
already been satisfied and, if that be so, the appellants
are entitled to differential amount together with interest
@ 6% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the claim
application till its actual realization.
6. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed, but
there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned
judgment stands modified to the extent indicated above
and the insurer is directed to pay the differential
compensation amount of Rs.2,60,000/- – 1,83,000/- =
Rs.77,000/- together with simple interest @ 6% w.e.f.
13.10.1999 till its actual realization within eight weeks
hence and in case of deposit of the compensation before
the learned tribunal; the same shall be disbursed the
same to the claimants-appellants in cash in equal
proportion by keeping 20% of it in the name of each of
the claimants in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for

five years.
Signature Not Verified
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 10 day of November, 2026/Jayakrushna
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Kataka
Date: 11-Nov-2026 16:08:50

MACA No.862 of 2010 Page 8 of 8