LAWS(ORI)-1999-6-8

OFFICER IN CHARGE LEGAL CELL Vs. RAMBHAMANI MOHAPATRA

Decided On June 21, 1999
Officer In Charge Legal Cell Appellant
V/S
Rambhamani Mohapatra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal though fixed for admission is taken up for final disposal on being agreed to by learned Counsel for both sides. Learned Counsel for the respondent -claimants points out that respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambhamani Mohapatra has died on 1.6.1999 and that since all her L.Rs. are already on record as respondents 2 to 6, no substitution is necessary and therefore the matter may be taken up for final disposal since the order will not cause prejudice to any one.

(2.) THIS appeal is against the award of Rs. 96,000/ - by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore in a motor accident claim cases. Brief facts of the case is that -deceased Madan Mohan Mohapatra aged 57 years at the relevant time was serving as an Artist in Kalinga -Bijay Opera and was getting Rs. 30,000/ - per year as salary. On 6.5.1994 at 4.30 p.m. in between Gopalpur -Palaspur Road he was waiting for a conveyance to Palaspur alongwith other Artists and articles for an Opera show at Palaspur. It is alleged that at that time the offending Truck O.R.U. 2010 belonging to Umesh Chandra Dalbehera came and dashed against the deceased being driven in a rash and negligent manner. After hitting the deceased the truck went down to the canal water by the side of the road. The deceased suffered bodily injuries and was taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he succumbed to the injuries. Opposite parties 1 and 2 both filed written statement separately, denying their liability for loss caused by the accident.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Insurance Company strenuously urges that since the accident took place in the year 1994, the case should have been governed by the provisions of the old Act thereby treating the period for appeal as six months. Secondly, according to the old Act the case should have been tried by 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack and not by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore. Thirdly, once the Tribunal found the age of the deceased 57, applying 16 -year multiplier is against the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.