After Claimants Accept Its Proposal, Orissa HC Adds Rs 2 Lakh To Compensation For Death Of Their Sole Breadwinner

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced in the claimants’ appeal.

The court held

The Court disposed of the appeal by enhancing compensation by a further consolidated sum of ₹2,00,000, payable by the insurer within eight weeks.

It also directed

Any deposited amount is to be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.

01Facts

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award of the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jharsuguda, which granted ₹5,86,712 with 6% simple interest for the death of their sole breadwinner.

pp. 1–2

The insurer had already satisfied that award, but the claimants sought enhancement.

pp. 1–2

During the appeal, the Court proposed a further consolidated enhancement of ₹2,00,000. The claimants accepted the proposal, and the respondents did not oppose it.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced in the claimants’ appeal.

pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether a further consolidated sum of ₹2,00,000 should be awarded in light of the parties’ responses to the Court’s proposal.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

p. 1

The Court also took guidance from Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), in resolving the appeal on the basis of the claimants’ acceptance of the Court’s proposal and the respondents’ decision not to dispute it. The judgment does not set out a broader test from that precedent.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s judgment and identified grounds supporting enhancement, though not beyond ₹2,00,000.

p. 2

It then proposed that amount as a consolidated enhancement, considering the dispute over quantum and seeking the parties’ responses. The claimants accepted the proposal through counsel, while the owner and insurer left the matter to the Court’s discretion. Relying on those circumstances and the cited Supreme Court decision, the Court found that awarding the proposed sum would serve the interests of justice.

pp. 3–4