Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.454 of 2023 CNR No. ODHC010374922023 Jyotsnarani Sahoo and another ..... Appellants Represented by Adv. – Mr. Susant Kumar Mohanty, P.Behera -versus- Upendra Jena and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s. Rimjhim Bala Pati, N.Barik (For R-2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.08.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein and the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2023 passed in M.A.C. Case No.692 of 2018 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Cuttack. 3. The factual background of the present case, in short, is that on 05.06.2018 at about 01.31 P.M. while the deceased was standing on the extreme left side of the road along with his Honda Activa bike bearing Registration No.OD-05-AH-0072 near DREAMS College Chhaka i.e. Page 2 of 6. Tangi-Bhatimunda Road, at that time, the offending vehicle, i.e., Tipper bearing Registration No.OR-04-C-1579 came from the opposite direction in high speed and, being driven in rash and negligent manner, collided with the deceased and ran over him. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 4. The deceased was later on shifted to SCBMCH, Cuttack where he was declared dead on arrival. The Claimants-Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the learned Tribunal by filing M.A.C. Case No.692 of 2018 initially with the prayer for grant of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal though issued summons to the Opposite Parties in the claimant petition, however, the Opposite Party No.1, the owner of the vehicle, did not appear before the Tribunal. Accordingly, he was set ex parte vide order dated 28.02.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants, at the outset, contended that learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence recorded from both sides as well as upon consideration of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing from both sides, allowed the claim application by awarding a total compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-. The Appellants-Claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as has been awarded, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988. 6. While assailing the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants contended that although the deceased was working in an institution and his salary certificate was produced before the Tribunal, which indicates that the deceased was getting of Rs.18,000/- per month while working as a Supervisor in Tetrahedron Junior Science College, Kotasahi, Tangi, Cuttack, such assertion of the Claimants with regard to the income of the deceased has been Page 3 of 6. disbelieved by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis has arrived at a conclusion that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.6,500/- per month. Challenging such fixation of the monthly income of the deceased, the Appellants-Claimants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal, with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal, while delivering the judgment dated 28.02.2023 thereby awarded the compensation to the Claimants, has not committed any illegality. She further contended that the Tribunal has taken note of the law applicable to the facts of the case and, accordingly, determined the quantum of compensation. She further submitted that although the Claimant-Appellants filed a salary certificate before the learned trial court, however, the same could not be proved by adducing corroboratory evidence. 8. Moreover, the witness i.e. P.W.3, who has been examined from the side of the Claimants to prove the salary certificate, categorically stated before the Court that he has not authorized by the institution to prove the salary certificate with regard to the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence from the side of the Claimants despite a salary slip being produced to show that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month at the time of the accident. She further contended that the learned Tribunal by taking into consideration the minimum wages arrived at a conclusion that the income of the deceased at the relevant point of time was Rs.6,500/-. On that basis the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Page 4 of 6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality. As such, the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2023 does not call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the submissions made, further on a careful examination of the impugned award as well as documents produced before this Court for consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the only surviving issue in the present appeal that requires adjudication is the dispute with regard to the fixation of the income of the deceased and the consequential award of the compensation to the Appellants-Complainants. While examining the aforesaid issue, this Court found that the income certificate which was produced from the Claimants’ side could not be proved as the person, i.e. P.W.3, who is an employee of the institution in which the deceased was allegedly working, stated before the Tribunal that he has not been authorized to prove the salary certificate issued by the institution. 10. Therefore, the Tribunal has notionally fixed the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,500/- per month. Although, on a careful reading of the impugned judgment, particularly para-7 thereof wherein in reply to Issue Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased notionally, this Court found that such notional fixation of the income of the deceased of Rs.6,500/- per month is not supported by any sound reason. In other words, the Tribunal, while fixing the monthly income of the deceased, has not given any reason whatsoever as to how he has arrived at Rs.6,500/-. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the learned counsel for the Appellants-Claimants has raised a valid point with regard to the fixation of the income of the deceased at the time of his death due to accident. Page 5 of 6. 11. While considering the income of the deceased, this Court found that there is no conclusive proof or evidence on record, which indicates, with certainty, the income of the deceased. Therefore, some amount of guess work is required to arrive at the correct figure of income of the deceased, which he would have been earning at the time of his death. 12. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that the best method would be to apply the daily wages as is applicable to skilled labourers, as it is not disputed that the deceased was working in an educational institution as an Electrical Supervisor. Thus, applying the daily wage as is applicable to skilled labourers at the said point of time, this Court is of the view that the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- would be just, fair and proper, so far the deceased is concerned. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident. 13. Taking into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-, his annual income would be of Rs.1,20,000/-, out of which, 50% is to be deducted as the deceased was a young boy and a bachelor. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased that is to be taken into consideration for compensation is 50% of the total income. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was aged about 23 years, the highest multiplier of 18 is to be applied. By applying 18 multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs.10,80,000/-. The Claimants-Appellants are also entitled to the loss of future prospect @ 40%, which is Rs.4,32,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation amount comes Rs.15,12,000/- to which a sum of Rs.70,000/- be add as general damages. Accordingly, the total compensation amount arrived at by this Court is Rs.15,82,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand). 14. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the Appellants-Claimants have already Page 6 of 6. been paid a sum of Rs.10,52,800/- along with the interest @ 6%. 15. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the enhancement of the compensation amount by further Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) consolidated shall be fit for the purpose. Accordingly, the compensation amount as granted by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that in addition to the amount already paid by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Appellants-Claimants, which shall be deposited before the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. Such additional amount shall be disbursed by the Tribunal in favour of the Claimants as per law. Further, while disposing of the appeal, it is reiterated that the right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is to be executed in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Designation: SECRETARY