IN THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL.

DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-9TH M.A.C.T., BHUBANESWAR

Present:
Smt. Sasmita Parhi, B.Sc. LL.M.,
Addl. District Judge-cum-
9th M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar.
J.O.Code-OD00240

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2024

M.A.C. No.178 of 2018

1. Kabitanjali Ghadai, aged about 35 years,

W/o. Late Ashok Ghadai.
2. Abhishek Ghadai, aged about 15 years,
S/o. Late Ashok Ghadai.
3. Aditya Ghadai, aged about 12 years,
S/o. Late Ashok Ghadai
(The applicant No.2 and 3 are being minor they
are represented through their mother guardian
i.e. applicant No.1 and next friend)
All are residence of Vill/PO-Baulabandha
(Khajuri Sahi), P.S. Banpur, Dist-Khordha.
…….Petitioners.
-Versus-
Director General of Police, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurdha.

…….. Opp.Party

Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri P.K. Nanda and

Associate Advs.
Counsel for O.P. : Shri R.P.Nanda, G.P.

Date of Argument: 28.03.2024

Date of Judgment: 30.03.2024

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 1 of 16

 JUDGMENT

This is an application preferred U/s-166 MV

Act, 1988 claiming compensation by the petitioners
for the loss sustained by them due to the motor
accident in which they lost the deceased, Ashok
Ghadai.

2. The case of the petitioners is that on 13.08.2018

at about 9.00 P.M., the deceased Ashok Ghadai was
going towards Puri on a motorcycle from his village
on the extreme left (morum portion) of the road very
slowly and cautiously. The road at the place of
accident is wide and well pitched as it is a part of
N.H.5. The road runs east-west direction by joining
Puri on the east and Rameswar on the west. In the
meantime, the offending police van bearing Regd.
No.OR-05-U-2052 was coming from Puri side in a
very high speed in rash and negligent manner and due
to the high speed the driver could not control the
vehicle while overtaking another vehicle suddenly
moved to the extreme right of the road in a dangerous
manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result,
the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries
on his body. After the accident the deceased was
shifted from the spot for first aid treatment but the
deceased succumbed to injuries at the spot. The
motorcycle was damaged beyond to repair. The post-
mortem examination of the deceased was conducted at

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 2 of 16

 Puri Govt. Hospital, Puri. The claimants being the
wife and sons, are the dependants. The deceased was
quite strong, stout and healthy man of 46 years of age
by the time of accident. Prior to the accident the
deceased was maintaining his livelihood by doing fish
business and supplying fish to different fish markets.
Due to his good behaviour he was liked by all and the
number of customers was increasing day by day. His
reputation in market is high. By doing such fish
business, he was earning of Rs.18,000/- per month.
Out of the said income the deceased was contributing
a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the maintenance of his
family. After accident the financial condition has been
ruined and the applicants have lost love and affection
of the deceased. That apart all the claimants have
been subjected to severe pain and sufferings due to
untimely death of deceased. His family was
completely dependent on him. The deceased was the
only earning member of his family. All the applicants
have lost the moral, spiritual guidance of the deceased.
The deceased had lost his future happy and prospectus
life. The offending vehicle was not validly insured as
State Govt. vehicle with unlimited third party liability
and the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid
driving license at the time of accident. The FIR was
registered. After due investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the accused U/s-279/304(A) of IPC.
The petitioners filed this case seeking compensation

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 3 of 16

 of Rs 17,00,000/- from the owner of the vehicle i.e.
Director General of Police.

3. The Opp.party entered his appearance and filed

the written statement wherein the Opp.Party does not
admit the commission of the accident. The claim
petition is also not maintainable and the claim petition
is barred by law of limitation. The alleged offending
vehicle was coming from Puri to Chhatrapur after
completion of law and order duty at Puri and the said
vehicle was driven by the driver at his left side in a
low speed. The driver is a very experienced one
having 20 years of driving experience in the police
Department. At the time of accident it was raining and
the deceased Ashok Ghadai was coming from opposite
direction by riding the motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner on the extreme right side of the
road. At that time the driver of the alleged offending
vehicle blew horn but the deceased did not vigilance
and alert and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner as a result of which he lost his control and
dashed at the right side with the police vehicle bearing
No.OR-05-U-2052 and fell down on the road.
Suddenly the driver of the police vehicle applied the
brake. The alleged accident caused due to the
negligent act of the motorcyclist who was solely
responsible for the said accident. The driver of the
offending vehicle has not acted negligently. So the

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 4 of 16

 owner of the vehicle is not vicariously liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. Further, the
Opp.party submits in its written statement that the
claim of the petitioners is arbitrary, imaginary and
highly excessive.

4. From the rival pleadings of the parties

following issues are emerged for determination:

ISSUES

(i) Whether the case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether on 13.08.2018 at about 9 PM due to

rash and negligence driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle bearing registration No.OR-
05-U-2052, the accident occurs near Ban
Barada Chhak, New Jaganatha Road between
Chandanpur-Rameswar road and in that
accident the injured sustained injuries and
ultimately succumbed to such injuries on his
person ?

(iii) Whether the O.P. is liable to pay compensation

to the petitioners ?

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any

compensation from the O.P. and if so, what
should be the quantum of such compensation ?

(v) To what relief, if any, the petitioners are

entitled?

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 5 of 16

 5. In order to substantiate their claim the
petitioners have examined two witnesses including
petitioner no. 1 as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the eye witness
to the alleged accident and relied on police papers,
P.M. report, inquest report, certificate of registration
and license for fishing vessels in the name of Ashok
Ghadai, original certificate of registry of a fishing boat
in the name of deceased.

On the other hand, the O.P. has examined two

witnesses. OPW.1 is the Assistant Commandant,
OSAP 8th Battalion, Chhatrapur and OPW2 is the
Havildar-driver of the office of OSAP, 8 th Battalion,
Chhatrapur. The O.P. has also relied on some
documents i.e. Ext.A to Ext.C on his behalf.

FINDINGS

6. Issue no. II and III :-

As both the issues are interlinked and inter

dependant to each other, they are taken up together for
discussion.

P.W.1 has reiterated in her affidavit evidence as

well as in the averments of the claim petition relating
to the cause and happening of the alleged incident and
the death of her husband resulting from the injuries
sustained in the said accident but it transpires from her

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 6 of 16

 evidence that she was not present at the time of
incident.

P.W.2 is the eye witness to the alleged incident.

It is noticed from the statement of P.W.2 that on the
relevant date and time he saw the deceased Ashok
Ghadai was going in a motorcycle from Rameswar
side towards Puri on the earthen flank of the road,
slowly and cautiously when the offending police van
bearing Regd. No.OR-05-U-2052 came from the front
i.e. from Puri side in a high speed without blowing
horn and being steered to its right extremity of the
road in the process of overtaking and dashed against
the deceased with violent force. As a result the
deceased fell down and received multiple injuries on
his body. The accident took place hardly at a distance
of 20 feet ahead to him. He along with others rushed
to the spot and removed the injured and shifted to the
local hospital for fast aid treatment but the deceased
died on the way to hospital. The deceased by caste as
fisherman and he was doing business of prawn and
fish having boat with machine. He was the Secretary
of Mahalaxmi Society at Baulabandha. The accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of police
van. In his cross examination he has stated that on the
date of accident he started his journey at about 6 a.m.
On that day he first went to Sukala and reached there
at about 10 to 11 A.M. Village Sukala is about 20 to

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 7 of 16

 25 km distance from his village Baulabandha. At
about 7 to 7.30 P.M. he left the village Sukala. The
place of accident is about 2.5 to 3 km away from
Sukala. The accident took place 25 meters distance
towards north from the place of accident. The place of
accident is a single road. The accident took place on
the north side of the road. At the time of accident he
was standing near the spot. From the above evidence
of the eye-witness, P.W.2 it can be said that the alleged
accident took place when the deceased was going
towards Puri by his motorcycle in the left side of the
road and the alleged police van dashed against him
and the vehicle was driven by the driver in a rash and
negligent manner.

On a careful reading of the certified copy of the

police papers marked as Ext.1, Ext.2, Ext.3, Ext.4,
Ext.5, Ext.6, Ext.7, certified copy of the Inquest report
vide Ext.8 and certified copy of the P.M. examination
report vide Ext.9, this tribunal finds that these police
papers lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1
and P.W.2. The certified copy of the charge sheet
marked as Ext.2 clearly reveals that the driver of the
police van was driving the offending vehicle at the
material time and due to his rash and negligent
driving, the accident was taken place. Therefore the
investigating officer submitted charge sheet against
him U/s. 279/304(A) I.P.C.

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 8 of 16

 7. O.P.Ws.1 and 2 have reiterated in their affidavit
evidence as well as in the averments of the written
statement relating to the cause and happening of the
alleged incident and the death of the deceased.

OPW.1 in his cross examination has stated that

he has no direct knowledge about the alleged accident
and he has not produced any experience certificate of
the driver. OPW.2 in his cross examination has stated
that when the accident took place his vehicle was
running in a low speed. He had seen the motorcyclist
coming in a high speed and on seeing him he slowed
down his vehicle and at the time of accident his
vehicle was running very slowly. He knows that one
police case is registered against him vide Satyabadi
P.S. Case No.198/2018 and he has not filed any protest
petition against the charge sheet. A. Anil Kumar
Reddy, Kabi Roul and Pramod Kumar Behera were
also boarding in the offending vehicle.

Thus taking into account the oral evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.2, OPWs.1 and 2 and the documentary
evidence vide Exts.1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8 and 9 I have no
hesitation to hold that on the relevant date and time
the offending vehicle i.e. police van bearing Regd. No.
OR-05-U-2052 caused accident to the deceased due to
rash and negligent driving of its driver, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries and later he succumbed to the

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 9 of 16

 injury on the spot. Hence, issue no. II and III are
answered in favour of the petitioners.

8. Issue No. IV & V:

As far as issue no. IV and V are concerned it is
to be decided whether the petitioners are entitled to
receive compensation on account of accidental death
of the deceased. It is not disputed that petitioner no. 1
is the wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons of the
deceased. It clearly transpires from the evidence of
P.W.1 that the deceased, out of his own income was
contributing money to the family in the matter of
maintenance of livelihood of the petitioners. Thus, I
am of the view that the petitioners being the
dependants of the deceased are entitled to
compensation for the accidental death of the deceased.
Next point comes for determination is what
should be quantum of compensation to be awarded in
favour of the petitioners. It is the settled position of
law that in motor accident claim cases the Tribunal
should award just, proper, reasonable and adequate
compensation in favour of the claimants.

With regard to the compensation amount it is

stated in the petition that the deceased was doing fish
business and was supplying fish to different fish
markets. From such business, he was earning
Rs.18,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that the deceased was doing prawn

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 10 of 16

 and fish business vide Ext.10 and also the owner of a
boat with machine vide Ext.11 and he was working as
Secretary of Mahalaxmi Society at Baulabandha.
P.W.2 also supported the case of the petitioners that
the deceased was doing fish business. Considering the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
in my opinion, the deceased can be treated under the
category of semi-skilled labour. In view of the
notification No.4909/LC, Bhubaneswar dated
30.04.2018 of the Office of the Labour Commissioner,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar the minimum wages of any
highly skilled labour is Rs.284.30 per day. So his
monthly income would be more than Rs.8,529/-. On
perusal of the inquest report vide Ext.8 and post
mortem examination report vide Ext.9, the age of the
deceased was 38 years at the time of accident.

As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another, reported in AIR 2009 SC
3104 the multiplier would be 15. Further the deceased
was having three dependents. So, the deduction of 1/3
of his income is to be made for personal and living
expenses of the deceased. Further as per the direction
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vrs. Pranay Sethi, vide Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, a future prospect of 40%
of the established income is to be added. Further as

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 11 of 16

 per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi's case (cited supra) reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- per head and Rs.15,000/-
respectively be awarded.

Accordingly the compensation payable is

assessed as per the following table:

COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION

A
Annual Established Income Rs. 1,02,348/-
B
Age 38 years
C
Dependant 3
D
Future Prospect (40% of A) Rs. 40,939.20
Deduction towards personal and living expenses
E
(1/3 of the Annual income + 1/3 of future Rs. 47,762.40
prospect) (1/3 of A + 1/3 of D)
F
Net Yearly Loss (A+D-E) Rs. 95,524.80
G
Multiplier 15
H
Loss of dependency (F*G) Rs. 14,32,872
I
Loss of consortium 3*Rs.40,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-
J
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
K
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-

Total compensation amount (H+I+J+K) Rs. 15,82,872/-

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 12 of 16

 Beside the above, the petitioners are also
entitled for an interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of application i.e. 18.09.2018.

Let us examine as to whether the Opposite

Party, owner of the offending police van bearing
Registration No.OR-05-U-2052 is entitled to
reimburse the petitioners for the loss. It is admitted
that the offending vehicle was under the control of
Opp.party. Learned advocate on behalf of claimants
urged before me that the I.O during investigation
seized the D.L vide Ext.C of the offending driver vide
No.OR-1820070002316 in the name of the driver
Prasanna Kumar Sethi. The petitioners have
submitted the copy of the driving certificate. OPW.2
has also filed his driving license which was valid from
01.09.2007 to 03.05.2027 (NT) and till 11.01.2027
(TR) which is marked as Ext.C.

Hence there is no dispute that the Director

General of Police i.e. Opp.Party is entitled to
reimburse the compensation amount payable to the
claimants. The said submission has got sufficient
force. Considering the submissions made and the
materials on record, this Tribunal is inclined to hold
that the Director General of Police, Opp.Party is
entitled to reimburse the above compensation payable
to the claimants.

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 13 of 16

 9. Issue No.1:

On going through the claim petition it is noticed

that the same is filed in time and is maintainable.

Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim petition is allowed on contest against

the Opp.Party. The Opp. Party, Director General of
Police, Odisha, Bhubaneswar is hereby directed to pay
15,82,872/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs eighty two
thousand eight hundred seventy two) only for death of
Ashok Ghadai to the claimants/petitioners along with
the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of filing the application within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of the order failing which the
amount to be carried a further interest at the rate of
9% per annum.
Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of
Rs.5,82,872/- (Rupees Five lakhs eighty two thousand
eight hundred seventy two) only be paid in cash to the
petitioner No.1 (wife) and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five lakhs) only be kept in the fixed deposit
in the name of the petitioner No.1 for a period of six
years and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs
fifty thousand) only each be kept in shape of fixed
deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of
Abhisek Ghadai (petitioner No.2) and Aditya Ghadai

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 14 of 16

 (petitioner No.3) till they attain majority. The
petitioner No.1 (wife) of the deceased on behalf of the
above minor petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.3 are at
liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest on the
respective fixed deposits and the petitioner No.2 and 3
on attaining majority would be at liberty to withdraw
the quarterly interest. All the fixed deposits shall not
be utilized for any collateral purposes. The petitioner
No.1 herself and on behalf of petitioner No.2 and 3
shall not withdraw the fixed deposit amount without
permission of the Tribunal.

The required court fees if not paid earlier shall

be realized from the claimants before payment of
compensation amount is made to them.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T.,Bhubaneswar

The judgment is typed out to my dictation by

the Stenographer attached to this Court directly on the
computer, corrected by me and pronounced in open
court, on this the 30th day of March, 2024 under my
signature and seal of this Court.
Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T.,Bhubaneswar

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the

Petitioners:
P.W.1 : Kabitanjali Ghadai

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 15 of 16

 P.W.2 : Braja Ghadai

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the

Opp.Parties:
OPW.1 : Nihar Ranjan Raj
OPW.2 : Prasanna Kumar Sethi

List of Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Petitioners:
Ext.1 : FIR
Ext.2 : Charge sheet
Ext.3 : Crime detail form
Ext.4 : Seizure list
Ext.5 : Zimanama
Ext.6 : Zimanama
Ext.7 : Zimanama
Ext.8 : Inquest report
Ext.9 : P.M. examination report
Ext.10: Certificate of registration and
license for fishing vessels
Ext.11: Original certificate of registry of a
fishing boat

List of documents marked on behalf of

Opp.Parties:
Ext.A : Written report of Havildar, Kabi
Roul, addressed to the
th
Commandant, OSAP, 8 Battalion,
Chhatrapur dated 17.08.2018
Ext.B : Written report of Havildar, Kabi
Roul, addressed to the
Commandant, OSAP, 8th Battalion,
Chhatrapur dated 15.08.2018
Ext.C : Driving license valid from
01.09.2007 to 03.05.2027 (NT) and
till 11.01.2027 (TR)

Sd/-
th
9 M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar

MAC No.178 of 2018 Page 16 of 16