[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. National Insurance vs Sabitri Mohanty And Others on 6 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1199 of 2023
(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).
M/s. National Insurance ... Appellant
Company Ltd., Cuttack
-versus-
Sabitri Mohanty and others ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Otta, Advocate
(for R-1(a) to (e)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.03.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack
(hereinafter referred to as "the insurer") being the
appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated
18.07.2023 passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Cuttack
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Case
No.190 of 2017 in this appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act").
By the impugned judgment, the learned
Tribunal has directed the insurer to pay a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum
w.e.f. 28.03.2017 till realization to the claimants, who
are the legal representatives of the injured-Naba
Kishore Mohanty, who died during the pendency of the
proceeding before the learned trial Court and
substituted by them.
2. Briefly stated, the present appeal arises out of
an accident that took place on 13.04.2016 at about 2
PM, when the injured was proceeding on Khuntuni
Ghantikhal road, on the way, one Pulsar Motorcycle
bearing Regd. No.OD-05-N-0615 (hereinafter referred
to as "the offending Motorcycle") dashed him from
behind by the rider who was riding the Motorcycle in a
rash and negligent manner, resulting in injury to the
injured with fracture of left limb and the injured was
accordingly shifted to different hospitals for his
treatment and he had incurred expenditure for his
treatment. The accident was in fact registered vide
Khuntuni PS Case No.50 of 2016, which resulted in
submission of charge-sheet, but later on the injured
approached the learned Tribunal in an application
U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation for
injuries sustained by him in the Motor vehicular
accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the
offending Motorcycle.
2.1. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC
Case No.190 of 2017), the owner of the offending
Motorcycle did not chose to contest the claim of the
injured and he was, accordingly, set ex parte, whereas
the insurer contested the claim of the injured by filing
written statement denying its liability by inter-alia
averring not being liable to indemnify the owner of the
offending motorcycle for the rider having no valid DL.
3. On the inter-se pleading between the parties,
the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed
the parties to lead evidence. The injured-claimant,
however, unfortunately died naturally during the
pendency of the claim proceeding and was substituted
by his legal representatives, who had led evidence by
examining three witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3 and proving
16 documents under Exts.1 to 16 as against no
evidence whatsoever by the insurer. After appreciating
the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the
learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted
compensation to the claimants for the amount indicated
supra. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment,
the insurer has preferred this appeal on various
grounds.
4. Heard, Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, learned
counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Ananga
Kumar Otta, learned counsel appearing virtually for R-
1(a) to (e), but none appears for the Respondent-
owner despite due notice of the appeal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties upon perusal of record, it primarily appears to
the Court that the quantum of compensation is mainly
challenged by the insurer, since the accident occurring
due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the
offending Motorcycle which could not be validly
disputed by the insurer and, thereby, this Court has no
other option left, but to concur with the finding of the
learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent riding of the rider of the offending
Motorcycle and, thereby, the claim is squarely
maintainable. Once the claim by the claimants is found
maintainable, the next question comes for
determination is assessment of compensation, which
must be just compensation inasmuch as grant of
compensation in a Motor vehicular accident is a
beneficial legislation and no strict procedure of law is
required to be adopted to compute the compensation to
the claimants. In this case, the learned Tribunal while
determining the compensation for the claimants under
issue No.(iii) has held in paragraph-8.5 of the
impugned judgment as under:-
"8.5. Hence, taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the medical documents, medical
expenditure bills filed on behalf of the injured-
petitioner and period of treatment, in the
humble view of this Tribunal, a consolidated
sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakh) be
awarded in favour of the petitioners on
different heads i.e. medical expenses,
attendant cost, pain and sufferings,
transportation and nutritious food towards
compensation due to injuries sustained by
Naba Kishore Mohanty which is the just
compensation in this case."
6. It, therefore, appears that the learned Tribunal
has not quantified the compensation by discussing
anything as to how the claimants are entitled to such
amount of compensation, which is evident from the
finding that a consolidated sum of Rs.6,00,000/- be
awarded in favour of the claimants, but on perusal of
the evidence on record, it is found that the injured was
admitted in Ashwini Hospital w.e.f. 16.04.2016 to
26.05.2016 and in addition, the injured was also
admitted in the said hospital on 27.06.2016 and
discharged on 04.07.2016 as per the discharge
certificates proved for the claimants under Exts.14/1
and 15/1. It is, therefore, quite clear that the injured
was admitted in the hospital for 57 days, but looking at
the expenditure in a private hospital like in this case, it
would be quite possible that the injured must have
spent at least Rs.7,000/- per day during the relevant
time of accident and, accordingly, the medical
expenditure of the claimant is quantified at Rs.7,000/-
X 57 = Rs.3,99,000/- In addition, the evidence on
record clearly suggests that the injured has spent
around Rs.51,886/- towards his treatment by producing
medicine bills. Hence, the claimant might have spent
total of around Rs.3,99,000/- + Rs.51,886/- =
Rs.4,50,886/-. Besides, the claimant is also entitled to
a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain, suffering and
trauma. Finally, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.4,50,886/- + Rs.15,000/- =
Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6%
per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application
on 28.03.2017. It is found from the record that learned
Tribunal has awarded penal interest on the
compensation amount, which is not admissible since
Section 171 of the Act provides for imposition of
interest on the award only and nowhere the Acts
provides for imposition of penal interest on the award.
Further, no other issue was raised by the appellant to
dispute the award and, accordingly, the claimants-
respondents are entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6%
per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application
on 28.03.2017 till actual realization.
7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part
on contest against the claimant-respondent Nos.1(a) to
(e), but ex parte against the owner-R2. Consequently,
the impugned judgment is modified to the extent
indicated above and the insurer is hereby, directed to
pay the modified compensation amount of
Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6%
per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application
on 28.03.2017 till realization by depositing the same
before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks hence.
On such deposit of modified compensation amount, the
same shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of
the award and the appellant-insurer be refunded back
with the statutory deposit together with the accrued
interest thereon.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 6th day of March, 2026/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
