Cuttack, October 23- In a detailed judgment delivered on Wednesday, the Orissa High Court substantially enhanced compensation for the family of a government officer who died in a tragic road accident nearly twelve years ago. Justice V. Narasingh, while hearing Surama Pati & Ors. vs. Bibekananda Samantaray & Anr., raised the award to ₹48.26 lakh, up from ₹21.52 lakh previously granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The court also directed The New India Assurance Company to pay the additional ₹26.73 lakh within six weeks, along with interest at 6% per annum.
Background
The case stemmed from the death of Bijaya Kumar Mishra, a Senior Divisional Veterinary Officer (S.D.V.O.), Khurda, who lost his life in a car accident on November 23, 2013, near Purighat Police Station, Cuttack. Mishra, then 55, was earning around ₹68,360 per month and was survived by his wife, Surama Pati, and two children, Bijeta and Sarthak Mishra.
The family had initially claimed ₹50 lakh as compensation, but in 2017, the MACT awarded them only ₹21.52 lakh with 6% interest. Dissatisfied, they approached the High Court seeking an enhancement, arguing that the tribunal had erred in calculating income and ignored key components like future prospects and consortium benefits.
Counsel Mr. K. Panigrahi represented the appellants, while Mr. S. Roy appeared for the insurer.
Court’s Observations
Justice Narasingh scrutinized the record, including salary certificates and service documents. He noted that the tribunal wrongly failed to account for Mishra’s full salary for November 2013, despite clear evidence showing it to be ₹68,360. “The learned Court in seisin has committed patent errors in quantification,” observed the judge, adding that deductions and future prospects were not properly applied.
Relying on several Supreme Court precedents including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. DTC, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram the court recalculated the compensation. It also clarified that consortium benefits must cover spousal and parental losses, as reaffirmed in Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur.
However, the bench upheld the deduction of family pension received by the widow, citing the ruling in N. Jayashree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. “This Court finds force in the submission that no irregularity has been committed in deducting the amount of ₹17,090 towards family pension,” Justice Narasingh remarked.
Decision
After detailed computation, the court determined that the total just compensation payable to the family was ₹48,26,611, including amounts for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium. The insurance company must now pay an additional ₹26,73,675 the difference between the MACT award and the recalculated sum with 6% annual interest from December 16, 2013, until full payment.
If payment is delayed beyond six weeks, the insurer will face penal interest of 9% per annum.
The court also outlined how the compensation should be distributed:
- 25% to be released to the widow,
- 25% to the two children equally, and
- the remaining 50% to be kept in a five-year fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.
With these directions, the court disposed of the appeal, reminding the claimants to pay the required court fee as per rules.
Case: Surama Pati & Others vs. Bibekananda Samantaray & Another
Case Type: Motor Accident Compensation Appeal (MACA No. 454 of 2018)
Appellants:
- Surama Pati (widow of deceased)
- Bijeta Mishra (daughter)
- Sarthak Mishra (son)
Respondents:
- Bibekananda Samantaray (vehicle owner)
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer)
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2025