Manager vs Priyadarshi Das & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1915 Ori

Orissa High Court

Manager vs Priyadarshi Das & Another on 27 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               MACA Nos.26 & 27 of 2023
(In the matter of application under Section-173(1) of M.V.
Act, 1988).
                  MACA No.26 of 2023

Manager, Legal (T.P. Claim),           ...           Appellant
Cholomandalam, M/S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Khordha

                                      Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate
                           -versus-
Priyadarshi Das & Another              ...        Respondents

                           Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate(R-1)
                   MACA No.27 of 2023
Priyadarshi Das                        ...           Appellant
                                Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate
                           -versus-
Patitapaban Behera & Another           ...        Respondents
                              Mr. A.A. Khan, Advocate(R-2)
             CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

              DATE OF HEARING : 24.02.2026
              DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27.02.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988(in short "the Act") ; one by insurance

Company (in short the "insurer") in MACA No.26 of

2023 and other by claimant in MACA No.27 of 2023

challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded by

the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed in

M.A.C. No. 85 of 2017 by which the learned 7th Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tribunal") awarded compensation of

Rs.1,12,71,231/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs

Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One)

together with Simple Interest of 6% per annum to the

claimant for the injuries and loss sustained by him in a

motor vehicular accident and directed the insurance

company to satisfy the award.

2. Bereft unnecessary details, the appeals arise

out of an accident which took place on 24.11.2016 at

about 12 Noon when one Priyadarshi Das, a "C" class

contractor by profession (claimant) coming from his

village Nayagarh by riding his bullet motorcycle was

dashed from the front by the truck bearing Regd. No.

OD-25-5655(hereinafter referred to as "the offending

vehicle") near Khelapada Lord Shiva Temple as a result,

the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries

including fracture and was immediately shifted to

nearby hospital and later treated at different hospitals

incurring huge expenditures. Besides, the accident was

registered vide Khandapada Sadar PS case No. 65 of

2016, which culminated in charge sheet. On this

accident, the claimant approached the learned tribunal

in an application U/S. 166 of the Act by impleading the

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle which

resulted in award of compensation to him by the

impugned judgment, however, the quantum of such

award is challenged by both the claimant and insurer in

these two appeals.

3. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for

the appellant-insurer in MACA No. 26 of 2023 &

Respondent No.2 (R2) in MACA No. 27 of 2023 and Mr.

Amiya Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant in MACA No. 27 of 2023 &

Respondent No.1 (R1) in MACA No. 26 of 2023 and

perused the record, but notice against the owner of

offending vehicle stood dispended with since liability to

satisfy the award has not been challenged in these

appeals.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record together with short written

notes of submission filed by the insurer, it appears that

primarily the quantum of compensation is challenged

on two counts; firstly, assessment of extent of disability

of the claimant and secondly, the assessment of income

of the claimant. In the appeal by the claimant, the

quantum of compensation is challenged mainly on the

ground of determination of his income. According to the

claimant, the learned Tribunal committed error by not

taking his income @ Rs.1,46,000/- per month, but the

learned Tribunal has admittedly assessed the annual

income of the claimant at Rs.13,74,724/- by referring

to his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the year 2016-17,

which is arrived at annual gross income of the claimant

less income tax paid. No doubt, the claimant claims his

monthly income to be Rs.1,46,000/-, but he has only

filed his ITRs for the year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19

& 2019-20 in addition to the oral evidence of PW2 who

is stated to be a Charted Accountant and claims to be

the Income Tax Retainer & Auditor of the claimant. No

doubt, PW2 has exhibited the balance sheet of the

claimant along with profit and loss statement under

Ext.11 with objection by the insurer, however, such

objection was consolidated in cross-examination of PW2

when he admitted to have not prepared Ext.11.

Additionally, PW2 has proved the ITRs of the claimant

under Exts. 10, 13, 14 & 15, but he has admitted in

cross-examination that the income of the claimant was

in reducing trend. It is found from the cross-

examination of PW.2 that the ITR of the claimant for

year 2018-19 shows his taxable income of

Rs.1,69,110/-, but the ITR of the claimant for the year

2018-19 under Ext.14 reveals the taxable income of the

claimant at Rs.16,84,530/- with gross total income of

Rs.18,52,128/-, and the tax payable is found to be

Rs.3,36,510/-. It is, therefore, very clear that PW2 has

no idea about the income of the claimant, but the

Tribunal has referred to the ITR of the claimant for the

year 2016-17 to assess his income. It is undisputed

that the accident took place on 24.11.2016 and the

Tribunal, therefore, has rightly taken the ITR of 2016-

17 under Ext.10 for the purpose of computing

compensation to the claimant. Hence, the plea as

advanced by the claimant in his appeal to enhance

compensation on the ground of his income to have not

been properly assessed merits no consideration and it

is accordingly, required to be rejected.

5. Moving to the plea/challenge of the insurer in

its appeal which according to it is improper assessment

of the disability of the claimant, it appears that the

insurer mainly relies upon the rulings of Raj Kumar

Vrs. Ajay Kumar and another; (2011) 1 SCC 343 to

dispute the assessment of disability made by the

learned Tribunal, but it has never challenged the

disability certificate issued to the claimant when it was

tendered in evidence under Ext.9. Law is also equally

well settled in Ajay Kumar (supra) that where the

disability certificates are given by duly constituted

Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to

evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificate.

In the circumstance, when the genuineness of Ext.9

was never challenged by the insurer and in absence of

any evidence contrary to genuineness of Ext.9, this

Court is of the view that Ext.9 is a genuine document.

Undeniably, loss of future earning of the claimant

sustaining injuries in the accident can be assessed by

making reference to the disability certificate of such

injured, but it is equally true that the same extent of

disability arising out of the injuries may affect two

different persons in different ways inasmuch as the

extent of permanent disability in relation to a part of

body or whole body may not be same to the extent of

functional disability of the said person. For example,

20% of permanent disability in respect of brain may not

be the same percentage of disability in relation to one

limb of the body of the same person and it would lead

to different extent of functional disability for the same

person depending upon the nature of work performed

by the injured, but in any case, the partial disability of

brain for 20% would result in higher degree of

consequence than the same percentage of disability of

limb. Additionally, the same percentage of permanent

disability can result in different consequence for two

different persons. For example, 20% of disability of

right upper limb in a case of mason would have higher

degree of loss of earning for him than with same

percentage of permanent disability for a Clerk and

other office employee having table job with habit of

writing in right limb. This is the precise reason why the

rulings in Ajay Kumar (supra) are considered

relevant for computing just compensation to the

claimant. For the purpose of computation of

compensation in a case of injury resulting in permanent

disability, Paragraphs-12, 13 & 17 of Ajay Kumar

(supra) are considered relevant which are reproduced

as under: -

"12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:

(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;

(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of

future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

17. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the

corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage."

6. It is also equally true that the loss of earning

capacity is something that will have to be assessed

since the same permanent disability may result in

different percentage of loss of earning capacity in

different persons depending upon the nature of

profession, occupation, job, age, education & other

factors relating to the claimant. Applying the aforesaid

principles as referred to above together with the dictum

of Apex Court in Ajay Kumar (supra), it appears from

Ext.9 that the case of the claimant is a locomotor

disability and has been diagnosed as Post Traumatic

Fracture of Right Upper Limb with Lower Limb. Ext.9

further discloses that claimant has 60% permanent

disability in relation to his (part of body). Further, PW1

in her examination-in-chief at Paragraph-4 has stated

as under: -

"4. That, as a result of which my husband (applicant) fell down on the road along with his motorcycle sustaining compound fracture injuries in his right leg tibia fibula, right hand humerus compound fracture with abrasion of muscle and rupture of ligament

and many others swollen and bleeding injuries throughout his body and head."

In addition, Ext.6 the discharge summary of

the claimant reveals the diagnosis as under: -

Compound fracture proximal 1/3rd of right tibia & fibula, compound fracture distal 1/3rd of right humerus+ radial nerve neuro maxia+Htn.

7. The aforesaid evidence clearly discloses that

the claimant has suffered compound fracture of right

tibia fibula, right humerus, but he is stated to be "C"

class contractor, however, there is no evidence

adduced by the claimant to show that what work he

was doing prior to the accident and how he could not

perform such work after the accident due to the

disability nor the insurer has led any evidence to show

that even after permanent disability, the claimant could

still effectively carry on the activities and function which

he was earlier carrying on. The evidence so produced

by the claimant would definitely go to show that he

must have been prevented or restricted from

discharging his normal previous activities and function,

but on the other hand, he could still carry on his

avocation on a lesser scale. Looking at the avocation of

the claimant, it cannot be said that he is on permanent

job and he would get work regularly because a

Contractor has to successfully apply for bid to do work,

but it is uncertain that the Contractor would get each

and every work he applies for. It is also found from the

record that the claimant was earning from his

profession which is evident from Exts. 10, 13, 14 &

15(ITRs), which are of course on decreasing trend

except ITR for the year 2018-19(Ext. 14) when the

income of the claimant had increased. Further, the

insurer has not and could not validly challenged the

determination of income of the injured-claimant and he

only dispute with regard to the assessment of disability

of the claimant. In the aforesaid situation, this Court

considers it relevant to notice the illustration as taken

by the Apex Court in Paragraph-14 of Ajay Kumar

(supra) while computing compensation therein in

Paragraph-25 before taking up the exercise in

computing the compensation in this case. The relevant

Paragraphs-14 & 25 of Ajay Kumar (supra) are

extracted as under: -

"14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of „loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.

25. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability

of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%."

8. Undoubtedly, the claimant-appellant has relied

upon the decision in S. Ettiappan Vrs. D. Kumar and

another; 2026 (1) TAC 84 (SC) to assert that

compensation should have been allowed to him by

calculating his loss of future income @ 100 % disability,

but the aforesaid decision on a respectful consideration

found distinguishable from the facts of the present case

inasmuch the claimant in the relied on case is a loader

who used to discharge his duty of loading and

unloading vegetables into the vehicles and his leg was

amputated due to the accident and thereby, his case is

rightly taken at 100% disability for calculating loss of

future earning, however, in the present case, the

claimant is a C-Class Contractor and neither his leg was

amputated nor can he be said to have lost his avocation

due to accident nor is there any evidence to say that

the claimant cannot perform the work earlier he was

doing as evident from the Exts. 13 &14 which shows

handsome earning of the claimant even after the

accident. In the aforesaid facts and discussion made

hereinabove and applying the principle of law to the

facts to the case at hand, since the disability of the

claimant has not been disputed as permanent disability

of 60%, but the same being in relation to his right

upper limb with lower limb and considering the same on

the basis of injuries sustained by the claimant as

referred to by PW1 in her examination-in-chief and

balancing them with reference to the avocation of the

claimant as "C" class Contractor, this Court considers it

proper to assess the functional disability of the claimant

at 45% and loss of future earning capacity at 35%. The

net annual income of the claimant which was arrived at

Rs.13,74,724/- by the learned Tribunal taking his

gross annual income at Rs.17,57,921/- less tax paid in

ITR for the year 2016-17 which is also confirmed by

this Court in these appeals, but since the claimant-

injured is aged about 47 years, an addition of 25%

towards future prospect is also considered relevant,

inasmuch as the claimant has definite prospect to earn

more and had he worked with his full capacity, his

earning would definitely have increased. Hence, the

annual income of claimant together with future

prospect would come around Rs.13,74,724 +

Rs.3,43,681 (25% of Rs.13,74,724/-) = Rs.17,18,405/-

and, therefore, the loss of future income of the

claimant would be assessed Rs.17,18,405/-X 13 X

35%=Rs.78,18,743/-. Further, the medical expenses

incurred by the claimant has never been disputed,

besides the claimant is also entitled to compensation

for pain, suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and

loss of expectation of life nominally and accordingly, a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is granted under such heading as

a token. Additionally, the claimant is remained

hospitalized for 30 days and he is thereby granted with

attendant charges together with special diet

Rs.4,00,000/- in view of the law laid down by the Apex

Court in Rina Rani Mallick Vrs. Susim Kanti

Mohanty and another; 2025 (2) TAC 781 (SC).

Further, no amount has been granted under the

heading of loss of income during the treatment and

post treatment. It is not disputed that the claimant

remained in hospital for one month, but he thereafter,

must have taken time for recovery and, therefore, a

lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is granted for his

loss of income during treatment and post treatment

period. Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated as

under in a tabular form: -

Loss of pain, suffering and trauma, loss of Rs.5,00,000/- amenities and loss of expectation of life nominally Attendant charges together with Rs.4,00,000/- diet Loss of income during treatment and post Rs.5,00,000/-

    treatment period
    Loss of future income                         Rs. 78,18,743/-
    Total Compensation                            Rs.92,18,743/-

The petitioner is also entitled to simple interest

@6% per annum. Hence, the claimant is entitled to

Rs. 92,18,743/- together with simple interest 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.

from 19.06.2017 till the date of payment.

9. In the result, the appeal by the claimant in

MACA No.27 of 2023 stands dismissed, but the appeal

by the insurer in MACA No.26 of 2023 stands allowed in

part on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no

order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned

judgment is modified to the extent indicated above and

the claimant is entitled to Rs. 92,18,743/- together with

interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 19.06.2017 till actual

realization. The insurer shall deposit the modified

compensation amount before the learned Tribunal

within eight weeks hence and on such deposit, the

same shall be disbursed to the claimant in terms of the

award passed by the learned Tribunal. On production of

proof of deposit of such modified compensation, the

statutory deposit together with interest accrued thereon

be refunded to the insurer.

Digitally Signed (G. Satapathy) Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Judge Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Feb-2026 16:22:38 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 27th day of February, 2026/kishore