The Branch Manager vs Mahendra Behera And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1855 Ori

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       MACA No.783 of 2017

                The Branch Manager, National                 ....          Appellant
                Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                        Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                Mahendra Behera and another           ....       Respondents
                             Mr. K. Panigrahi, Advocate for Respondent No.1
            .




                            CORAM:
                            JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                           ORDER

28.02.2023 Order No.

06. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant-

Insurance Company and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-claimant.

2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against judgment dated 29.11.2016 of learned 1st M.A.C.T., Jajpur in M.A.C. Case No.49 of 2009, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.5,90,900/- has been granted along with interest @6% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 15.07.2009 on account of injury sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident dated 08.03.2009.

3. Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor Trolley bearing Registration No.OR-02-AN-8485 and OR-02-AN-8486 was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Such contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is rejected outright taking note

of the admitted fact that the driver was authorized to drive LMV and definition prescribed under Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act.

4. It is next contended by Mr. P.K. Mahali that the appropriate multiplier should be '15' instead of '17' and the amount of Rs.2,90,975/- granted towards treatment expenses is liable to be reduced.

5. Learned Tribunal has accepted the age of the injured as 35 years and thus applied multiplier '17'. The same is found in consonance with the principles decided in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and confirmed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore no point is seen in favour of the Appellant to reduce it to '15'. Further considering the medical bills produced under Exts.7 series and 8 series, the computation towards treatment expenses by learned Tribunal is fully justified.

6. Here it is needed to mention that the claimant-Respondent No.1 has filed a cross-objection praying for enhancement of the compensation amount. But the same is rejected being barred by limitation considering the fact that it was filed after two years of the appearance and no petition for condonation of delay is preferred.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as directed by the learned Tribunal within a period of two

months before it including the interest, where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant-Respondent No.1 on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned judgment.

8. On deposit of the award amount before 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.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik