Orissa High Court
Manager (Legal) vs Prakash Sahoo And Another on 28 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.481 of 2020
Manager (Legal),
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr.S.Satpathy, Advocate
-versus-
Prakash Sahoo and another .... Respondents
Mr.L.M.Nanda, Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
28.10.2022
Order No.
9. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurer and Mr.Nanda, learned counsel for claimant-Respondent
No.1.
3. Present appeal by the Insurer-Appellant is against the
judgment dated 10th February, 2020 of the learned District Judge-
cum - Ist M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur, in MAC Case No.250 of
2016, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.18,09,000/- has
been granted along with interest @7% per annum with effect
from the date of filing of the claim application on account of
injury sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident
on 20th November, 2015.
4. The Tribunal has granted compensation on the
following counts:-
Sl No. Heads Amount (Rs.)
1. Loss of future income 12,24,000/-
(@Rs.6000/- per month)
2. Expenditures incurred towards the
Hospital charges, medicine
2,50,000/-
charges, operation charges etc.
tentatively since the date of
accident i.e., since 02.01.2016 to
20.01.2016
3. Conveyance charges i.e., transport 10,000/-
charges
4. Attendance charges during 10,000/-
treatment at the hospital
5. Expenses for Special diet & 10,000/-
nutrition
6. Loss of comfort & amenities for
his future life due to the effect of
1,00,000/-
the injuries for his 100%
permanent disability due to optic
atrophy (low vision) and Mental
illness (Schizophrenia)
7. Pain and sufferings for whole
period of life due to the effect of
1,00,000/-
injuries
8. Loss of beauty due to the injuries 50,000/-
9. Loss of expectation of life 50,000/-
10. Cost of litigation 5,000/-
Total 18,09,000/-
5. Mr.Satpathy contends that, first of all, the sustenance
of injury by the claimants in the accident dated 20th November,
2015 is doubtful in view of the date of accident mentioned in
Ext.6 and other medical papers. Secondly, the quantum of
compensation determined by the Tribunal is excessively high and
needs to be reduced.
6. With regard to first challenge, it is seen from the
records that Ext.6 is the discharge summery dated 27th November,
2016 issued by S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. In
the said discharge summery, the date of accident is mentioned as
27th November, 2015. Taking advantage of this discrepancy in the
discharge summery, it is contended by the Insurer that when the
date of accident is 20th November, 2015 as per the claim,
sustenance of injuries in the said accident is found doubtful as
there is possibility that the claimant subsequently faced with
another accident on 27th November, 2022.
It reveals from the police papers that the F.I.R. was lodged on
9th December, 2015 stating the date of accident on 20th
November, 2015. The injury requisition made by the police is
dated 9th December, 2012 and the injury report supplied by the
doctor is dated 18th August, 2016. The claimant in his evidence as
P.W.1 has consistently said that he faced with the accident on 20th
November, 2015. But in the cross-examination being asked by
the Insurer, he (P.W.1) could not able to say where he was from
20th to 28th November, 2015.
7. Upon consideration of all such discrepancies
mentioned in the discharge certificate coupled with the statement
of the injured, though it makes out a ground in favour of the
Insurer, but the same cannot be held sufficient to conclusively
opine that the injured did not sustain such injury in the accident
dated 20th November, 2015. It is for the reason that as per the
disability certificate under Ext.7, the injured suffered with
multiple disabilities including mental illness. It is possible that
some typographical error might have been crept in the contents of
the discharge certificate. The injury report produced under Ext.5
justifies the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic
accident and no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the
injured to deny the contentions of the claimant regarding
sustenance of injuries in the accident. Thus the doubt posed by
the Insurer regarding the date of accident, for a wrong date
mentioned in the discharge certificate, would not satisfy their
contention to disbelieve sustenance of such injuries by the
claimant in the motor accident/road traffic accident.
8. Moreover, when Ext.7 (the disability certificate) shows
100% disability of the injured due to mental illness, a poor
memory on his part to forget his where-about for certain days
would not be an uncommon fact affecting his case. Therefore, the
doubt expressed by Mr. Satpathy has no valid point for
consideration. It is confirmed that the claimant sustained such
injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 20th November,
2015 as per the F.I.R. under Ext.1.
9. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is seen
from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has assessed
monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- to determine loss of
income to the tune of Rs.12,24,000/-. The discussions made by
the Tribunal regarding income of the injured are seen without any
exaggeration or unreasonableness. Keeping in view the nature of
disability mentioned in Ext.7 and without any doubt about 100%
loss of functional disability, no ground is seen to interfere with
the amount granted towards loss of income. Similarly, the other
amounts granted towards medical expenditures and loss of
amenities and pleasure of life are found reasonable considering
the nature of injury, period of treatment and age of the injured.
10. Upon thorough perusal of the impugned judgment and
the documents produced on record, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, the
rate of interest is reduced to 6% from 7% against the direction of
the Tribunal and the penal interest is waived.
11. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction
to the Insurer-Appellant to deposit the entire compensation
amount along with interest @6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application 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 contained in the impugned
judgment.
12. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant with
accrued interest thereon be refunded to him on proper application
and on production of proof of deposit of the award amount before
the learned Tribunal.
13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
