Orissa High Court
Brundaban Behera vs Trilok Chand Lahani And Another on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.557 of 2013
Brundaban Behera .... Appellant
Mr.Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Trilok Chand Lahani and another .... Respondents
Mr.N.B.Das, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
13.12.2021
Order No.
5. 1. Heard Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.N.B.Das, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurer.
2. The Appellant has prayed enhancement of the impugned
compensation amount. The learned Tribunal by the impugned
judgment dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge-Cum-MACT, Cuttack in MAC Case No.945 of
2002 has directed for payment of compensation of Rs.87,000/-
along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim
application i.e., on 16th December, 2002 on account of the injuries
sustained by the claimant in the accident dated 12th August, 2002.
3. It is submitted by Mr.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
Appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the
subsequent treatment of the claimant in the private hospital as
well as the disability certificate furnished on his behalf.
4. On the other hand, Mr.N.B.Das, learned counsel for Insurer-
Respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly
discarded the disability certificate dated 1st September, 2012
produced on behalf of the Appellant and has also rightly
disbelieved the subsequent treatment story.
5. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned judgment, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has
granted compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of transportation, Rs.7,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
income to make the total compensation to Rs.87,000/-. The
learned Tribunal has rejected the disability certificate produced
by the claimant under Ext.8 on the ground that the same has been
issued after ten years of the accident and speaks for disability in
the left hand though the injuries were admittedly in the right
hand.
6. Upon perusal of copy of Ext.8 as produced by the claimant in
course of hearing, the reasons so mentioned by the learned
Tribunal at paragraph-9 of the judgment cannot be faulted with.
In addition to the same, it is not understood as to how the
disability mentioned under Ext.8 is connected to the accident and
the injuries sustained thereof prior to ten years.
7. The reasons mentioned by the Tribunal to disbelieve the case
of the claimant-Appellant with regard to further treatment in the
private hospital after one year of the accident on the ground of
insufficient proofs, is also found justified keeping in view the
nature of evidences adduced on record.
8. Thus, no fault is found in approach of the learned Tribunal in
calculating the compensation amount. However, considering the
nature of injury which is compound fracture in the right hand of
the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that a further
consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) be paid to the
Appellant. Accordingly, the insurer-Respondent No.2 is directed
to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to the
claimant within a period of eight weeks from today.
10. The appeal is disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
