The Supreme Court of India granted an appeal in the case of Rojalini Nayak & Ors. v. Ajit Sahoo & Ors., challenging the High Court of Orissa's decision on a motor accident compensation claim. The Court modified the compensation awarded, enhancing it based on established legal principles, and corrected certain deductions and additions concerning personal expenses and future prospects.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal questioning the final judgment of the High Court of Orissa concerning compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The case arose from an accident in 2010 that resulted in the death of Bichitra Nayak, an employee of ESSAR Steel Orissa Limited.

Background

Incident and Initial Tribunal Decision

On June 4, 2010, an ambulance carrying Bichitra Nayak collided with a truck, resulting in Nayak's death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially dismissed the claim, attributing no fault to the truck driver and ruling the claim petition non-maintainable.

High Court Judgment

The High Court revised the compensation to Rs. 8,30,000, deducting the Rs. 6,25,000 already paid by the ambulance owner, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,05,000 to be paid by the insurers.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Judgment

Key Issues Addressed

1. Future Prospects: The Supreme Court acknowledged an error in the High Court's addition of only 25% to the deceased's salary for future prospects, increasing it to 30% based on the Pranay Sethi case guidelines.
2. Personal Expenses Deduction: The High Court's deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses was corrected to 1/4th, considering four dependents.
3. Loss of Consortium and Other Conventional Heads: Adjustments were made to the compensation for loss of consortium and other heads, aligning with inflation adjustments outlined in Pranay Sethi.

Enhanced Compensation

The final enhanced compensation was recalculated, resulting in a total of Rs. 10,06,900, with Rs. 3,81,900 remaining after deducting the amount already paid by the employer. The rate of interest on the remaining amount was set at 7.5%.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment, ensuring just compensation for the deceased's family. The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was directed to accrue from the date of filing the claim petition, with all pending applications disposed of accordingly.