Orissa High Court
Branch Manager vs Smt. Namita Barik on 13 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.366 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.)
Branch Manager, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, 2nd
Floor, Mittl Tower, OT
Road ITI Chhack,
Balasore, Pin-756001;
Now represented through
the Sr. Executive (Legal)
and Authorised Signatory,
One Jan path, 3rd Floor,
Sriya Square, Kharavela ... Appellant
Nagar, BBSR
-versus-
1. Smt. Namita Barik
2. Sri Manas Barik
3. Sri Jitendra Barik
4. Sri Manas Kumar
Mohanty ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. B. Singh, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 21.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.03.2026
Page 1 of 10
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
Page 2 of 10
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
Page 3 of 10
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.
Page 4 of 10
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 on the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of Laxmi Devi vs. Baldev
Singh, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1699.
Page 5 of 10
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite
Party-claimants, Mr. B. Singh submits that it is too late
in the day to take objection regarding the assessment
of compensation treating the emoluments as
Rs.40,000/- in terms of the Second Schedule, inasmuch
as it is abundantly clear from the judgment that both
sides proceeded on the premises that this is also an
application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and that
it is apt to note that admittedly the application was
styled as one under “Sections 163(A) and 166 of the
M.V. Act”.
10. So far as the assessment of compensation is
concerned, learned counsel for the Claimants relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra
@ Chanda @ Chandraram and another vs. Mukesh
Kumar Yadav and others, 2021 (4) T.A.C. 346
(S.C.); (2022) 1 SCC 198 and held that there is no
thumb rule that in the absence of any documentary
evidence being produced, minimum wages have to be
taken for arriving at the income of the deceased.
Page 6 of 10
11. In the given facts of the present case, the wife
of the deceased claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.7,000/- per month. Such income of Rs.7,000/- per
month remained unchallenged in cross-examination.
The relevant extract of the examination in chief
filed by way of affidavit as well as the cross-
examination in this regard is culled out hereunder for
convenience of reference;
“xxx xxx xxx
4. My husband was a strang and healthy
man of 35 years he was managed our family by
doing carpentary with cultivation and earned per
month 7,000/- and more. I alongwith my family
members were living very happily and all the
petitioners were fully depending on the income of
my husband. I am completely house wife and
petitioner 2,3 are school going children.
xxx xxx xxx"
'X' examination-
"xxx xxx xxx
16. It is not the fact that my husband met the
accident while proceeding in the motor cycle, due
to negligence of the driver. It is not a fact that
my husband was never doing any wood work. It
is not a fact that in connivance with police and
owner of the motor cycle a false FIR is lodged.
xxx xxx xxx”
Page 7 of 10
12. Hence, considering the materials on record, the
learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the earning of
the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month.
13. In this context, this Court respectfully refers to
the observation of the Apex Court in the case of
Chandra (supra) that “in absence of documentary
evidence on record some amount of guesswork is
required to be done. But at the same time the
guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased
should not be totally detached from reality.”
14. On consideration of the materials and evidence
on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
subjective assessment of the learned Tribunal that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and
consequential quantification of compensation on such
basis cannot be said to be irrational so as to warrant
interference.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed
by the learned Tribunal.
Page 8 of 10
In view of the discussion as above, considering
the materials on record, on the touchstone of the
doctrine of “just compensation”, the Insurance
Company is held liable to pay the compensation
amount of Rs.8,53,000/-, as awarded.
15. So far as interest is concerned, this Court is
persuaded to hold that in the factual backdrop of the
case at hand, quantifying interest at the rate of 6%
from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.,
11.02.2013, till actual payment, would subserve the
ends of justice. The interest component in terms of the
impugned award accordingly stands modified.
16. The amount awarded along with interest at the
rate of 6% as above shall be deposited within a period
of six weeks hence. The amount, if any, already paid in
terms of impugned award shall be deducted.
Within a period two weeks of such deposit, the
same shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of
the impugned award as modified.
Page 9 of 10
17. Within four weeks of submitting evidence
regarding the compliance relating to deposit of the
compensation, the statutory deposit along with accrued
interest shall be released in favour of the Insurance
Company, as per procedure.
18. Accordingly, the MACA is disposed of. Costs
made easy.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 13th of March, 2026/Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:55:37
Page 10 of 10