[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Debi Prasad Pradhan vs Santosh Sahoo And Another on 6 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.595 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).
Debi Prasad Pradhan ... Appellant
-versus-
Santosh Sahoo and another ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
(for R-2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.02.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The appellant being aggrieved with the
quantum of compensation has approached this Court
in an appeal U/S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
as amended by Act No.32 of 2019 (in short, "the Act")
challenging the impugned award passed on
04.02.2025 by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in
MAC Case No.3678 of 2017.
2. Facts not in dispute are that the appellant
on 29.11.2013 at about 5.30 PM met with an accident
being dashed by the rider of Hero-Honda Motorcycle
bearing Regd. No.OR-02-AV-9982 and consequently,
he sustained injury and shifted to the hospital, but
later he was referred to SCBMCH, Cuttack for further
treatment. On the incident of the accident, an FIR was
lodged with registration of Khandagiri PS Case No.639
of 2013, but subsequently, the appellant being the
petitioner has approached the learned Tribunal for
compensation on the account of injuries sustained by
him in the accident by impleading the owner and
insurer of the offending Hero-Honda Motorcycle.
2.1. In response to the notice of claim of the
appellant-claimant, the owner of offending Motorcycle
did not appear and was set ex parte, but the insurer of
the Motorcycle contested the claim, however, the
learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on
record upon hearing the parties passed the award
directing the Respondent-insurer to pay compensation
of Rs.7,44,800/- along with 6% interest w.e.f. the
date of filing of the claim application. Further, it is
brought to the notice of the Court that the insurer has
already satisfied the award.
3. Heard, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned
counsel for the R2. Notice against R1-cum-owner
stands dispensed with since liability of payment of
compensation by R2 is not disputed.
4. The rival submissions made it very clear
that the quantum of compensation has been disputed
on two accounts, one is income of the injured
appellant and another is for non-consideration of the
medical expenditure incurred by the appellant-
claimant. At the outset, the minimum wage that has
been taken by the learned Tribunal to assess the
compensation was Rs.4,000/- per month, but as per
the prevailing wage rates at the time of accident, it
should have been Rs.4,500/-, which was never
disputed by R2. Further, the appellant-claimant in the
course of evidence has produced medicine bill worth
Rs.1,98,317/- towards his medical expenditure, but in
the impugned judgment, there is no discussion made
as to why the medical expenses has not been given to
the appellant. Further, the medical expenses incurred
by the appellant has not been challenged by R2 in the
cross-examination and there was no reference made
by it with regard to appellant incurring medical
expenses, however, the accident and injury to the
person of the claimant is not disputed and, thereby,
the incurrence of expenditure cannot be disputed, but
the thing which is required to be assessed is that what
should be the appropriate medical expenditure of the
appellant. However, on going through the depositions
of the witnesses together with the evidence on record
and pleadings of the claimant, it appears that the
claimant-appellant was admitted to SCBMCH, Cuttack
on 29.11.2013 and discharged on 10.12.2013 and,
thereafter, he was again admitted to the hospital on
22.01.2014 and discharged on 26.01.2014. It,
therefore, very clear that the claimant was an indoor
patient for around 15 days and that apart the accident
took place in Bhubaneswar and, therefore, the
claimant-appellant must have been provided
preliminary treatment at Bhubaneswar and he must
have incurred expenses towards his transportation to
SCBMCH, Cuttack. Looking at the evidence on record
and taking into account the period of treatment and
there being no concrete proof of medical bills, this
Court feels that a consolidated sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
would be just and proper towards the medical
expenditure of the claimant.
5. Besides, the claimant-appellant is also entitled
for enhancement of compensation on account of his
income @ Rs.4,500/-per month which is calculated as
follows: Rs.4,500 x 12= Rs.54,000/- and adding 40%
of Rs.54,000/- would come around Rs.54,000/- +
Rs.21,600/-= Rs.75,600/- and 50% of Rs.75,600/-
would come to Rs.37,800/- and, thereby, multiplying
the aforesaid amount by multiplier 18, it would come
around Rs.37,800/- x 18= Rs.6,80,400/- as loss of
future income, but the learned Tribunal has calculated
loss of future income at Rs.6,04,800/- and, therefore,
the differential amount to which the appellant-claimant
is entitled under the head of loss of future income
would be Rs.75,600/-, which is rounded off to
Rs.75,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to
enhancement of Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.75,000/- =
Rs.2,25,000/- together with 6% interest w.e.f. the
date of filing of the claim application.
6. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to
the extent indicated above and the Respondent-insurer
is, hereby, directed to pay an additional amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- together with 6% interest per annum
w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application. The
enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited
before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks hence
and in case of deposit of such amount, the same shall
be disbursed to the appellant-claimant in terms of the
award.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 6th day of February, 2026/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
