Orissa High Court
Sharsransu Jena vs Susama Sahoo And Another on 21 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.503 of 2019
Sharsransu Jena .... Appellant
Mr. Durga Charan Dey, Advocate
-versus-
Susama Sahoo and Another .... Respondents
Mr. B.N. Udgata, counsel for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
21.02.2022
Order No.
12. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellant and Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel for the insurer-
Respondent No.2.
2. Present appeal by the claimant is against impugned judgment
dated 28th May, 2019 of the learned 2nd MACT, Cuttack in Misc. Case
No.549 of 2014 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6,56,964/-
along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application, i.e. 8th August, 2014 has been granted on account of
injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident
dated 9th July, 2014.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned
Tribunal has failed to appreciate the extent of disability and
consequential future loss of income. It is further submitted that though
Appellant was a private tutor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but
the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the same at Rs.3000/- to
derive the loss of income during the period of treatment. Enhancement
is prayed for on these two counts.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Udgata supports the impugned
judgment.
5. Upon hearing both parties and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that the learned Tribunal discarded the contention
of the claimant with regards to his temporary disability on the ground
that the disability certificate as produced on behalf of the claimant is
not satisfactorily proved on record. It reveals that the extent of
disability mentioned under Ext.8 and 8/a is to the extent of 20% only,
which are documnts not granted by authorised person. As such, no
fault is seen in the approach of learned Tribunal to disbelieve such
purported disability certificate.
6. So far the income aspect of the claimant is concerned, he has
claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month being employed as
a tutor in a private institution. The document with regard to his
monthly income submitted by the claimant has been disbelieved by
the learned tribunal holding the same as a private document and has
not been sufficiently proved on record. The learned Tribunal has
assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- per month. However,
considering the nature of avocation of the appellant, the assessment of
income at Rs.3000/- appears to be minimal and the same is enhanced
to Rs.5000/- since it is the specific case of the claimant that he was a
private tutor and was engaged in a private institution for teaching the
students.
7. Accordingly the amount calculated by the learned Tribunal
towards loss of income during the period of his treatment and laid up
period, i.e. 202 days as calculated by the learned Tribunal, the loss of
income is enhanced to Rs.33,600/-. Accordingly the amount of
compensation is required to be enhanced by Rs.13,400/-.
8. It is submitted by both parties that the compensation amount in
terms of direction of the learned Tribunal has not been paid till date.
9. Accordingly, the insurer - Respondent No.2 is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.6,70,364/- (six
lakh seventy thousand three hundred sixty-four) before the learned
tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim application, i.e. 8th August, 2014 within a period of two
months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant on such terms and proportion as contained in the
impugned judgement of the Tribunal.
10. The appeal is disposed of.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
