Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Sambit Mohanty And Another on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.69 of 2017
Divisional Manager, New India .... Appellant
Assurance Company Limited
Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
-versus-
Sambit Mohanty and another .... Respondents
Mr. R.C. Pradhan, Advocate for Respondent No.1
.
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
08.09.2022
Order No.
10. 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company as well as Mr. R.C. Pradhan, learned counsel
for the Respondent No.1-claimant.
2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against the judgment
dated 26.09.2016 of learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar in
M.A.C. Case No.114/44 of 2007 wherein compensation to the
tune of Rs.27,20,966/- has been granted along with interest @7%
per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.07.02.2007 on account of injury sustained by him
in the motor vehicular accident dated 21.11.2006.
3. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Appellant mainly
confines to the quantum of compensation by stating that the
amount granted towards treatment expenses is excessive and the
same is not supported by substantial evidence.
4. Upon hearing Mr. R.C. Pradhan, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1-claimant, it is seen from the impugned
judgment that different heads of compensation has been counted
as follows:
Sl. HEAD CALCULATION
No.
(i) Expenses in treatment = Rs.17,84,466/-
(ii) Compensation for loss of income during = Rs.75,000/-
period of treatment
(iii) Future loss of income = Rs.5,76,000/-
(iv) Attendant charges = Rs.75,000/-
(v) Transportation charges = Rs.5,000/-
(vi) Special diet = Rs.5,000/-
(vii) Compensation for pain, suffering and = Rs.1,00,000/-
trauma
(viii) Compensation for loss of expectation of = Rs.50,000/-
life
(ix) Compensation for loss of amenities = Rs.50,000/-
(x) Litigation expenses = Rs.500/-
Total compensation awarded = Rs.27,20,966/- (Rupees twenty-
seven lakhs twenty thousand
nine hundred sixty-six) only
5. Learned Tribunal has though discussed about the injury and
treatments, but in the end opining that the claimant has filed cash
memos to the tune of Rs.17,84,466/- has counted such amount. It
is true that none of such cash memos have been marked in exhibit
by the learned Tribunal.
6. Perusal of different discharge certificates issued by Neelachal
Hospital, Kalinga Hospital and Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar
under Exts.6 to 13 as produced in course of hearing, reveals that
the ultrasound verification did not speak about any kind of kidney
injury, whereas the discharge certificate of Neelachal Hospital,
Bhubaneswar dated 22.11.2006 and Kalinga Hospital,
Bhubaneswar dated 29.12.2006 reveals that the injured-claimant
had known case of adult polycystic kidney disease. It further
reveals from the certified copy of the deposition of the injured-
claimant that he failed to support such expenses through medical
bills or cash memos borne out of such injury only due to the
accident. It needs to be mentioned here that as per the injury
report, there was fracture in pelvic region due to the accident.
7. Considering all such factors and particularly in absence of
original cash memos proved on record and marked as exhibit in
the claim proceeding, such high amount of expenses as counted
by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.17,87,466/- appears excessive.
In such circumstances, considering the nature of injury and his
period of treatment in different hospitals, which is around 25
months on different spells, the same is reduced to Rs.10,00,000/-.
8. Resultantly, the compensation amount is reduced to
Rs.19,36,500/- as this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with other heads of count. However, the rate of interest is reduced
to 6% and the penal interest @8% is waived.
9. Accordingly, the Appellant - Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the modified compensation of Rs.19,36,500/- (rupees
nineteen lakhs thirty-six thousand five hundred) before the
Tribunal along with interest @6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application, i.e.,07.02.2007 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 to be
decided by the learned Tribunal.
10. On deposit of the award amount before the learned Tribunal
and filing of a receipt evidencing the deposit with a refund
application before this Court, the statutory deposit made before
this Court with accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the
Appellant-Insurance Company.
11. The MACA is disposed of with aforesaid directions.
12. The certified copy of evidence of the injured-claimant and
copies of different other exhibits produced in course of hearing
are kept on record.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
