Orissa High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sabita Mohapatra And Another (In ... on 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.365 of 2020
MACA Nos.365 & 511 of 2020
The Divisional Manager, New India
Assurance Company Ltd (in MACA No.365/2020)
Sabita Mohapatra (in MACA No.511/2020)
.... Appellants
Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate (in MACA No.365/2020)
Mr. B.N. Samantaray, Advocate (in MACA No.511/2020)
-versus-
Sabita Mohapatra and Another (In MACA No.365/2020)
Sanjaya Parida and Another (In MACA No.511/2020)
.... Respondents
Mr. B.N. Samantaray, counsel for Respondent No.1
(in MACA No.365/2020)
Mr. Subrat Satpathy, counsel for Respondent No.2
(in MACA No.511/2020)
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
1.8.2022
Order No.
05. 1. The matters are taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment, are
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard Mr. S. Satpathy, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr.
B.N. Samantaray, learned counsels for claimant.
4. MACA No.365 of 2020 is filed by the insurer challenging the
award whereas MACA No.511 of 2020 has been filed by the injured-
claimant praying for enhancement of the compensation amount.
5. Learned 1st MACT, Cuttack in the impugned judgment dated
24th December, 2019 passed in MAC Case No.287 of 2016 has
directed on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor
vehicular accident dated 6th March, 2016, for payment of
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 21st
April, 2016.
6. All such submissions as advanced by Mr. S. Satpathy, learned
counsel for the insurer, except the challenge with regard to quantum
of compensation, need not be discussed here in view of the judgment
passed today in the connected appeals in MACA Nos.366 of 2020 and
512 of 2020.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Satpathy on the aspect of quantum that
the treatment of the injured Sabitri Mohapatra in Amri Hospital is
doubtful and therefore such expenses of treatment counted by the
tribunal in respect of Amri Hospital is liable to be deducted.
8. Conversely, it is submitted by Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel
for the injured-claimant that, though the medical bills exhibited before
the learned tribunal show expenditure of Rs.5,04,277/- still the
tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- only without disbelieving or
disputing such medical bills.
9. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the tribunal has
granted aforesaid compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- in total including all
such heads like medical expenses, attendant cost, pain and suffering
etc. without assigning any specific reason for arriving at such amount.
10. The submission of Mr. Satpathy that the treatment of the
injured in Amri Hospital is doubtful on the ground that P.W.4, a staff
of said hospital by coming to the witness box, has not confirmed
about any prior treatment of the injured in Aswini Hospital, is not
found sustainable. It is for the reason that admittedly, P.W.4 is no-way
connected with the treatment of the injured in Aswini Hospital. So,
whatever he says regarding treatment of the injured in Aswini hospital
cannot be believed. Admittedly, he does not deny the treatment of the
injured in Amri Hospital. But for failure on his part to say about the
details of treatment in Amri Hospital, it would not be proper to
entirely exclude such expenses of the injured in Amri Hospital as
contended by Mr. Satpathy. However, considering the nature of
evidence adduced by said P.W.4, particularly in view of his statement
made in the cross-examination, the approach of the tribunal in
granting total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- cannot be faulted with
definite reasons. As such I do not see any merit in the contentions of
both parties to interfere with the award of such compensation by the
tribunal, which is confirmed.
11. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed.
12. However, the right of recovery, as granted in favour of the
insurer - Appellant in MACA No.365 of 2020 is not disturbed by this
court.
13. The statutory deposit made by the insurer - Appellant in MACA
No.365 of 2020 before this court along with accrued interest be
refunded to the insurer on proper application and on production of
proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the tribunal.
14. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
