Orissa High Court
Satyanarayan Mahakud vs Raj Kumar Saraiwala And Another on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.306 of 2019 & MACA No.288 of 2020
In MACA No.306 of 2019
Satyanarayan Mahakud .... Appellant
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate
-versus-
Raj Kumar Saraiwala and another .... Respondents
Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
In MACA No.288 of 2020
The Sr. Divisional Manager, New India .... Appellant
Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
Satyanarayan Mahakud and another .... Respondents
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
02.12.2021
Order No.
I.A. No.525 of 2020 arising out of MACA No.288 of 2020
09. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for claimant as well as
Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
2. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the grounds
mentioned in the petition, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
3. I.A. is disposed of.
MACA No.306 of 2019 & MACA No.288 of 2020
4. On the consent of both the parties, the appeals are heard and
taken up for final disposal.
5. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimant as well
as Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. In MACA No.306 of 2019, the claimant is the Appellant, who
has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. In
MACA No.288 of 2020, the Insurance Company is the Appellant,
who prays for reduction in the amount of compensation.
7. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment are
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
8. By the impugned judgment dated 27.3.2019 passed in MAC
No.517 of 2015/18-2017, learned Tribunal has directed for grant
of compensation of Rs.7,29,161/- along with 6% interest from
18.8.2015 to the claimant on account of his injury sustained in the
accident dated 28.4.2015. On that fateful day when the claimant
was going in a motorcycle, the offending vehicle, i.e. the pick-up
van bearing Registration No.OR-11-E-3229 came in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motor-cycle. Due to the
effect of the accident, the Appellant sustained fracture injury of
right Tibia leg, left Tibia leg, femur and fracture of right hand
along with other injuries. The claimant underwent treatment in
Baripada Government Hospital and thereafter in Ashwini
Hospital, Cuttack from 28.4.2015 to 5.5.2015. Learned Tribunal
considering the medical expenses incurred and loss of earning
granted the aforesaid amount of compensation.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant that the learned
Tribunal has inadequately awarded the medical expenses incurred
by him and calculated a lesser amount on that count.
10. To examine this contention of the claimant, it is seen from the
impugned judgment that the learned Tribunal has counted the
entire amount of Rs.1,07,000/- mentioned in the final bill of
Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack under Ext.2 and further counted the
cost of medicines to the tune of Rs.2,16,161/- mentioned in 37
medicine bills. So what is seen that all the documents produced
by the claimant on record has been well counted by the learned
Tribunal to compute the medical expenses to the tune of
Rs.3,23,161/-. So no infirmity is noticed in the same and as such
the contention of the claimant for enhancement is rejected.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the insurer that the admitted
disability of the claimant as per the certificate furnished by him
under Exts.8 & 9 are up-to 50% and the same is temporary valid
till 2022. But the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier 14
taking disability as permanent and thus has committed error on
record.
12. Coming to examine this contention of the insurer, it is seen
from the impugned judgment that the claimant suffered with
temporary disability up-to 50% till the year 2022 as per Ext.9, the
disability certificate. In other words, temporary disability of the
Appellant up-to 50% would persist till the year 2022. So taking
the date of accident on 28.4.2015 and the period of disability
mentioned in Ext.9, the multiplier should be '7' instead of '14'.
Here it is submitted by the claimant that possibility of
continuance of such temporary status of disability of the injured
beyond 2022 cannot be ruled out now and therefore application of
'14' multiplier by the tribunal cannot be discarded as erroneous.
This is a hypothetical logic and does not sound convincing.
Presuming anything beyond what is mentioned in Ext.9 is
anticipation. There is no certainty in such anticipation. The
admitted fact remains that the disability of the claimant as per the
certificate produced by him does not speak for permanency of the
disability. It is a temporary disability as per the opinion of the
medical board which would persist with up-to the year 2022.
Therefore at this stage, it may not be apt to apply the multiplier
applicable in the case of permanent disability. Moreover the rule
is that, the compensation should neither be a bonanza nor a
pittance. So keeping firm all other calculations of the Tribunal,
the compensation is reduced by Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of
future income, i.e. Rs.5,000 x 40/100 x 12 x 7 = Rs.1,68,000/-
and accordingly, total compensation amount is determined to
Rs.5,61,161/-.
13. The insurer (Appellant in MACA No.288 of 2020 and
Respondent No.2 in MACA No.306 of 2019) is directed to
deposit the modified amount of compensation of Rs.5,61,161/-
(five lakhs sixty one thousand one hundred sixty one only) along
with interest @6% per annum from 18.8.2015 before the learned
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today; where-after
the same shall be the disbursed to the claimant on the same
proportion and terms as directed by the learned Tribunal.
14. On deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal
and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit before this Court
with a refund application, the statutory deposit made before this
Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the
Appellant-Insurance Company.
15. With the aforesaid observations, the MACAs are disposed of.
16. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
