Orissa High Court
D.M vs Nirupama Nayak & on 15 May, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.182 of 2025 & MACA No.1040 of 2024
D.M., National Insurance .... Appellant
Company Ltd, Cuttack Mr. R.R. Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
Nirupama Nayak & .... Respondents
Another Mr. D. Pattanaik, Adv.
(for Res. No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
15.05.2025
I.A. NO.1450 of 2024
Order No.
4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Service Book of the injured filed in Court be kept
on record.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of a common
judgment, the same were heard analogously and
disposed of by the present common order.
4. While MACA No.182 of 2025 has been filed by the
insurer-company challenging the award, MACA No.1040
of 2024 has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the award vide its Judgment dtd.
25.07.2024 in MAC Case No.1223 of 2018, learned 2 nd
// 2 //
ADJ-Cum-3rd MACT awarded compensation to the tune
as Rs.10,09,600/- along with interest @ 7% per annum
payable from the date of application till its realization
along with penal interest @ 12% per annum of the award
amount is not deposited within the stipulated time.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer while
assailing the award contended that the compensation
awarded towards treatment and hospitalization at
Rs.2,40,000/- and compensation awarded to an extent
of RS.5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities is on the higher side.
5.1 It is also contended that the award of interest @7%
per annum along with default interest @ 12% per annum
is on the higher side taking into the prevailing bank
interest rate. It is accordingly that the impugned award
needs interference of this Court.
6. Mr. D. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimant-Respondent No.1 in support of the
enhancement of the award contended that because of
the accident in question, the claimant suffered disability
to the extent of 60% permanent and her left leg below
knee was amputed. It is contended that the factum of
amputation is also an admitted fact, being reflected in
para 12.1 of the impugned judgment.
6.1. It is further contended that the injured is a teacher
and was drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month at the
// 3 //
time of accident. It is contended that taking into
account the age of the injured and the salary drawn vis-
à-vis the disability with amputation of the left leg below
the knee, the Tribunal committed a wrong in not treating
the same as loss of future income at 100%. It is also
contended that since the disability is with regard to the
amputation of the left leg below knee which is a
permanent disability, the Tribunal should have allowed
compensation towards future loss of income and
compensation towards future attendant charges as the
injured requires an attendant for the rest part of her life.
But the Tribunal on the face of such disability only
awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and
loss of amenities and Rs.2,00,000/- towards future
medical treatment.
6.2. It is contended that taking into account the salary
of the injured Rs.35,000/- per month and by taking into
account the fact that the injured will not receive any
post retirement pension as an appointee after
01.01.2025, by taking the loss of future income at 100%,
injured-claimant would have been entitled to get
compensation at Rs.29,46,000/- on that account . It is
also contended that taking into account the age of the
claimant, if a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month is allowed
towards future attendant charges, compensation to the
tune of Rs.6,60,000/- should have been awarded. It is
accordingly contended that had the tribunal awarded
just and proper compensation towards future loss of
// 4 //
income and future attendant charges, Claimant-
Respondent No.1 would have been entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.46,09,600/-. However with
regard to award of interest @ 7% per annum and default
interest @12% per annum, it is contended that this
Court may pass appropriate order.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made and taking into
account the nature of disability, as reflected in the
impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal should have assessed the future loss of income
at 100%. It is also found from the impugned judgment
that no compensation has been awarded towards future
attendant charges, even though the disability is
permanent in nature and a case of amputation of the left
leg below knee.
7.1. In view of the same, this Court while interfering
with the impugned judgment is of the view that the end
of justice will be sub-served, if compensation amount is
enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/-. However, this Court is
inclined to allow interest @ 6% per annum on the
compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- payable from
the date of application till its realization and waive out
the penal interest assessed @ 12% per annum.
7.2. This Court accordingly directs the insurer to
deposit compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- along
with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of
// 5 //
application till its realization. It is observed that on such
deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to
disburse the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent
in terms of the judgment dt.25.07.2024.
7.3. It is further observed that if the insurer fails to
deposit the amount within the stipulated time period,
compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- will carry
interest @ 7% per annum payable from the expiry of the
period of eight (8) weeks till it is deposited.
7.4. Only after deposit of the amount, Appellant in
MACA No.182 of 2025 will be permitted to take refund of
the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any,
on proper identification.
Accordingly, Both the MACAs are stand disposed
of.
Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected
case.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 24-May-2025 13:30:34
