[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Pradhan vs M/S. Manakshya Stone Pvt. Ltd on 20 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023
(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).
MACA No.395 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Pradhan ... Appellant
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate
-versus-
M/s. Manakshya Stone Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents
and another
Mr. B. Udgata, Advocate(R-2)
MACA No.689 of 2023
The Senior Manager, M/s. ... Appellant
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Cuttack
Mr. B. Udgata, Advocate
-versus-
Ashok Pradhan and ... Respondents
another
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate(R-1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:20.03.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. In these two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the
Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short, the "Act"), the
same judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the
learned 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack
(in short, "the Tribunal") in MAC Case No.107 of 2019
has been assailed.
By the impugned judgment, the learned
tribunal has directed the National Insurance Company
Ltd.(In short "the insurer") to pay Rs. 5,46,162/- to
one Ashok Kumar Pradhan (In short "the claimant")
together with simple interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f
01.02.2019 till its realization for the injury sustained
by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident.
2. Briefly stated, the claimant unfortunately
met with a Motor vehicular accident on 04.01.2019 at
about 11:15AM when the Hywa Truck bearing
Registration No. OD-02-AM-4544(hereinafter referred
to as "the offending vehicle") dashed the claimant
from backside at Malipada Square, when the latter was
going on a walk. Due to the accident, the claimant
sustained injuries and had undergone treatment at
different Hospitals. On this accident, Jankia PS Case
No. 05 of 2019 was registered which culminated in
charge sheet. According to the claimant, the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle and he suffered not only
monetary loss, but also pain and trauma. Accordingly,
the claimant approached the learned tribunal in an
application U/S. 166 of the Act for grant of
compensation towards injuries sustained by him in the
aforesaid motor vehicular accident by impleading the
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle resulting in
registration of MAC Case No. 107 of 2019 by the
learned tribunal.
2.1. In response to the notice of such claim,
the owner of offending truck did not appear and he
was set ex parte, whereas the insurer of the offending
truck not only appeared, but also filed its written
statement denying all the allegations made against it
and inter-alia disowning its liability to pay the
compensation amount to the claimant.
3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the
learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed
the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the
claimant examined four witnesses vide PWs.1 to 4 and
proved 16 documents under Ext.1 to 16 as against no
evidence whatsoever by the insurer.
3.1. After appreciating the evidence on record
upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed
impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the
compensation amount indicated supra to the claimant.
Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation,
not only the insurer has preferred one appeal, but also
the claimant has preferred another appeal and this is
the reason why both these appeals were tagged and
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
4. Heard, Mr. Durga Charan Dey, learned
counsel for the claimant and Mr. Bibekananda Udgata,
learned counsel for the insurer in both the appeals and
perused the record, but none appears for the
Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle despite due
service of notice of the appeals.
5. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, the only question
remains to be adjudicated in both these appeals as to
whether the quantum of compensation as awarded to
the claimant is just and proper. In answering such
issue, this Court considers it proper to refer to the
relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment,
wherein the learned tribunal has computed the
compensation for the claimant. The relevant
observation of the learned tribunal reads as under:-
" xxx xxx .In the instant case, the petitioner
(P.W.1) has claimed that after such accident
he was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital,
Khurda but due to his serious condition he
was referred to Capital Hospital,
Bhubaneswar for treatment and due to non-
availability of bed in Capital Hospital he was
treated in Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar as an
indoor patient. In spite of prolonged
treatment from 04.01.2019 to 24.01.2019 at
Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar he could not be
recovered properly and became a physically
disabled person. But no disability certificate
in that regard has been proved to establish
his claim. In the claim petition, the petitioner
has claimed that he had incurred expenditure
of Rs. 7,00,000.00 towards his treatment. In
support of his claim the petitioner has also
proved his medical treatment documents
along with the medical bills of Sum Hospital
and AMRl Hospital, Bhubaneswar amounting
of Rs. 3,66,504.00 marked as Ext. 12 (88
sheets). P.W.4, the Marketing Executive in
Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar has proved
treatment papers, along with bills of
Rs.49,658.00 vide Ext. 16. Ext.9 the
discharge summary of Sum Hospital reveals
that the injured got admitted on 04.01.2019
and discharged on 24.01.2019 for sustaining
abrasion present over lateral aspect of right
pelvis and abrasion present over lateral
aspect of left foot over distal end of fibula.
From the above evidence, it is clear that
though the petitioner had claimed
Rs.7,00,000.00 towards expenditure for his
medical treatment but he was only able to
prove the medical bills vide Ext. 12 and
Ext.16forRs.3,66,504.00and Rs.49,658.00
respectively. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view
that the injured-petitioner is entitled to get
total Rs.4,16,162.00 in total towards his
medical expenditure incurred due to the
alleged accident."
6. A careful perusal of the aforesaid
observation of the learned tribunal, it appears to the
Court that the learned tribunal has taken into
consideration Ext. 12 & Ext. 16 to arrive at a
conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.
4,16,162/- under pecuniary head for the injury
sustained by him, but it is found from the record that
Ext. 12 contains Ext. 16 and thereby, the amount as
found in Ext.16 has been calculated twice which needs
to be deducted. It is not in dispute that the learned
tribunal has computed Rs. 49, 658/- by relying upon
Ext. 16 which amount needs to be deducted from the
compensation amount calculated for the claimant.
Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to compensation
of Rs. 3,66,504/- under pecuniary head.
7. It also appears that it is a plain case of
injury, but not a case of disability and thereby,
following the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar vrs. Ajay
Kumar; (2011) 1 SCC 343, the computation of
compensation has to be considered by taking into
account (i)the expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing
food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of
earnings during the period of treatment and (iii) Loss
of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). In
this case as discussed earlier, the expenses relating to
treatment,hospitalization,medicines and miscellaneous
expenditure have already been awarded, but the
learned tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
towards expenses incurred on special diet and
conveyance, whereas it has awarded Rs. 20,000/-
towards attendant charges and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
pain and sufferings, however, the tribunal should have
granted more on special diets, rather than granting a
hefty sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of pain
and sufferings inasmuch as the injury report of the
claimant reveals him to have suffered injury of
fracture of lower limb. According to this Court, since
the claimant had remained as indoor patient for 21
days, he may be awarded at least for a sum of Rs.
84,000/- under the head of special diet and attendant
charges @ Rs. 4000/- per day, but he should not
have granted more than Rs. 20,000/- under the head
of pain and sufferings in this case. Accordingly, the
claimant is entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.
1,04,000/- towards pain sufferings, special diet and
attendant charges in addition to a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards conveyance charges. In the result, the total
compensation amount to the claimant is hereby
calculated at 3,66,000/- + 1,04,000/- + 10,000/- =
Rs. 4,80,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to interest
@ 6 % per annum w.e.f the date of filing of claim i.e.
01.02.2019 till the realization of the amount.
8. In the result, the appeal by the Claimant
stands dismissed, whereas the appeal by the Insurer
stands allowed in part on contest, but ex-parte against
the Owner-Respondent. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment is modified to the extent indicated above and
the Insurer is hereby directed to pay to the Claimant a
compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- together with simple
interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 01.02.2019 till its
realization within eight weeks hence. On deposit of the
aforesaid compensation amount before the learned
tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant
proportionately in terms of the impugned judgment
and on proof of such deposit, the statutory deposit
amount together with accrued interest thereon be
refunded back to the Insurer.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th day of March, 2026/Priyajit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
