Orissa High Court
Act vs Batakrushna Sahoo & on 17 October, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.250 of 2022
(In the matter of application under Section-173 of M.V.
Act, 1988).
Parsuram Rout ... Appellant
-versus-
Batakrushna Sahoo & ... Respondents
Another
For Appellant : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : None
For Respondent No.2 Mr. S. Roy, Advocate(R-2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 17.10.2025 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is an appeal U/S.173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") by the appellant-
claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to
him by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Tribunal") by way of the judgment dated 28.02.2022
passed in Misc. Case No.783 of 1997 granting
compensation to the appellant-claimant for a sum of
Rs.51,040/- along with interest @6% per annum w.e.f.
the date of filing of claim petition i.e. on 08.09.1997
within one month thence in an application U/S.166 of
the Act. The learned Tribunal has also imposed a cost
of Rs.500/- to R-2-M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Cuttack, who being the insurer of the offending vehicle
has been directed to indemnify Respondent No.1 (R1)
by satisfying the award.
2. The foundational facts giving rise to the
claim are that on 22.03.1997 at about 3.30P.M., the
appellant-claimant met with an accident and sustained
injuries while boarding the offending bus bearing Regd.
No.OR-04-7394 due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver. Accordingly, Badachana P.S. Case No.43 of 1997
was registered and the injured-appellant was
immediately shifted to Badachana C.H.C. and
thereafter, to S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack for his better
treatment. According to the appellant-claimant, he was
owner-cum-driver of the Tempo Trax bearing Regd. No.
OR-04-A-254 and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month,
but due to accident, he became disabled and could not
perform his day to day work. The appellant-claimant
accordingly filed the claim petition by impleading the
respondents herein as the OPs which was registered
before the learned Tribunal in Misc. Case No.783 of
1997.
In response to the claim, the respondent-
cum-OP No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle,
did not participate and remained ex-parte, but the
respondent-cum-OP No.2-insurer filed his written
statement denying all the pleadings of the appellant-
claimant and called upon him to strict proof of the
claim.
3. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival
pleadings, stuck with four issues and answered all the
issues in favour of the appellant-claimant and granted
compensation to the appellant-claimant to the amount
indicated supra, but being aggrieved, the appellant-
claimant has challenged the award before this Court in
this appeal for enhancement.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Antaryami
Dash, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant,
however, confines his submission on two issues; firstly,
for non-consideration of disability of the claimant and
secondly, for incorrect assessment of the income of the
claimant by holding him as a driver. The learned
counsel for the appellant accordingly prays to enhance
the award.
4.1. In resisting the claim of the appellant, the
R-2-insurer being represented by Mr. Somanath Roy,
learned counsel, however, strongly refutes such
submissions advanced for the appellant-claimant by
inter alia stating that the learned Tribunal has rightly
not taken into consideration the disability of the
appellant, since there is no evidence to link the
disability of the appellant with the accident and the
learned Tribunal in the absence of proof of income of
the claimant has rightly taken his income at Rs.52/- per
day by considering the daily wage of a skilled labourer
prevaling then. Mr. Roy, accordingly, prays to dismiss
the appeal.
5. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
dispute only with regard to the quantum of
compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal and
there is no dispute with regard to the findings of the
learned Tribunal on the other issues. In straightaway
coming to the issue of assessment of the income of the
injured-appellant, it appears that the learned Tribunal
has rightly placed reliance on the parameters as fixed
by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vrs. Ajay Kumar;
(2011) 1 SCC 343, but the dispute with regard to
non-consideration of disability by the learned Tribunal,
it appears to this Court that the claimant-appellant has
relied upon documents under Exts.9/c to 9/h, 10, 10/a
& 11. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly
appreciated such documents, which has been stated in
paragraph-9 of the judgment that Ext.9/c, the OPD
ticket dated 14.11.2012 of S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack
shows that the appellant-claimant was suffering from
pain on his left foot. Similarly, Ext.9/f indicates about
appellant-claimant suffering from pain due to
osteoporosis, whereas Ext.11 which is the OPD ticket of
SVNIRTAR, Olatpur reveals about early stage of Lumbar
spondylitis. Similarly, Ext.9/g, the OPD ticket dated
22.05.2016 of the S.C.B., M.C.H, Cuttack indicates that
the appellant complained of pain over cervical region,
whereas Ext.9/h, the OPD ticket dated 08.07.2016
reveals that the appellant-claimant had complained of
pain all over his body. It is no doubt claimed by the
appellant-claimant that he has sustained spinal injury,
but not a single document has been filed to support or
establish such fact. It is not out of place to mention
here that Ext. 9/c to 9/h, 10, 10/a & 11 are of the year
2012 to 2016, whereas the accident took place on
22.03.1997 and the appellant-claimant has admitted in
his evidence that he has no paper in support of his
treatment from 1997 to 2012. From a cumulative
reading of the aforesaid facts together with the
judgment, it appears that the appellant-claimant has
unsuccessfully attempted to connect the ailments
"Osteoporosis and Lumbar Spondylitis" to be on
account of the result of the injuries sustained by him in
the accident dated 22.03.1997 inasmuch as Lumbar
Spondylitis and Osteoporosis are the ailments which are
normally associated with some persons either due to
age factor or on account of some other problem.
6. True it is that the appellant-claimant has
produced the disability certificate issued to him under
Ext.5 which was in fact issued to him in the year 2014
and thereby, the appellant-claimant has managed to
obtain the disability certificate after the gap of 17 years
from the date of accident, but the appellant-claimant
has failed to link the disability certificate with the injury
sustained by him in the accident. It is, therefore, very
clear that the learned Tribunal has not committed any
illegality in rejecting the disability certificate while
computing compensation to the appellant-claimant.
7. On coming back to the other plea as raised
by the appellant-claimant that his income has not been
properly assessed, it appears that the appellant-
claimant has proved Exts.6, 7 & 8 to say that he is the
registered owner of the Tempo Trax, but the same fact
has not been disputed by the respondent-insurer by
producing any evidence. It is, therefore, clear that the
appellant-claimant was the owner of the Tempo Trax at
the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal has fallen
in error in assessing the income of the appellant-
claimant by holding him as a driver. It can be
considered that the income of the driver must be less
than the owner of the vehicle. Of course, the appellant-
claimant has not produced any document to establish
his monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per month at the
time of accident, but nevertheless by making an
intelligence speculation, it would not be improper to
take his income at Rs.8,000/- per month at the
relevant time of accident in the year 1997, however,
the learned Tribunal has applied loss of earning during
the period of treatment for four months in respect of
the appellant-claimant at Rs.5,040/- by taking him as a
driver, but since the appellant-claimant was a
registered owner of a vehicle and this Court having
taken his monthly income at Rs.8,000/- per month, the
loss of income of the appellant-claimant during the
aforesaid period of treatment, it would come around
Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 4). The learned Tribunal has
also rightly granted Rs.15,000/- towards the pain and
suffering of the appellant-claimant for the injuries so
also Rs.30,000/- towards his treatment, which was in
fact not challenged seriously by the appellant-claimant.
It is, however, considered that the appellant-claimant
must have spent some amount towards the cost of his
transportation from the place of accident to C.H.C.,
Badchana and thereafter, from C.H.C., Badchana to
S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack, which may be reasonably
considered at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the modified
compensation amount to the appellant-claimant would
come around Rs.30,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.32,000/- +
Rs.5,000/- = Rs.82,000/-. Hence, the modified
compensation is calculated at Rs.82,000/-. Further, the
appellant-claimant is also entitled to interest @6%
which the learned Tribunal has awarded.
8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed on
contest, but in the circumstances, there is no order as
to costs. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is
modified and in addition to the cost of Rs.500/-, the
appellant-claimant is entitled to receive from the
insurer-cum-R-2 the modified compensation of
Rs.82,000/- @6% interest which shall be paid to him
within three months hence, failing which the appellant-
claimant is at liberty to realize the same by due process
of the Court.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th day of October, 2025/S.Sasmal
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Oct-2025 18:55:17
