The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.925 of 2016 From the Judgment / Order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore in M.A.C Case No.152/253 of 2012-2011. ……………… Sachidananda Panigrahi …. Appellant -versus- Ratna Giri & Another …. Respondents For Petitioner : M/s. P.K. Mishra & P.P.Mishra. For Opp. Parties : M/s. S. N. Nayak, R.K. Sahu & D.R. Senapati. PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 05.12.2024 and Date of Judgment:05.12.2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded by // 2 // the learned 3rd MACT, Balasore in MAC Case No.152 of 253 of 2012/2011. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that with regard to the injury sustained by the appellant-claimant, the claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.152/252 of 2012- 11. 4. It is contended that basing on the materials produced by the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal though held the monthly income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- per month and the age of the injured at 48 years, but only awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5.% per annum payable from the date of application till its payment.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. It is contended that even though relevant documents was exhibited showing the disability of the Petitioner at 50%, but the said fact was not considered in its proper perspective by awarding appropriate contention. 4.2. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajaya Kumar & Another, reported in 2011(3) SCC-343, compensation should have been awarded by the Tribunal on different heads. But since in the present case only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded and no compensation
Decision
was awarded on different heads, the impugned order is Page 2 of 5 // 3 // not sustainable in the eye of law. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-6 of the judgment has held as follows:- “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses medicines, miscellaneous expenditure. to transportation, relating treatment, hospitalization, and nourishing food, (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life”. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since the claim arises out of an injury sustained by the injured appellant in a motor accident, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Raj Kumar as cited (supra), learned Tribunal Page 3 of 5 // 4 // should have awarded compensation on different heads. But in the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- which is in the nature of a consolidated compensation. 4.4. It is also contended that taking into account the disability of the injured at 50% permanent compensation on different heads as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar should have been awarded. It is accordingly contended that the impugned awards needs substantial enhancement. 5. Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that in the meantime the award so passed has already been satisfied by the Respondent No.2 and the appellant has received the same also. Therefore, there is no occasion to enhance the compensation as claimed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the injured- appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Respondent-Company. 6.1. However in course of hearing, it is found that on the face of the materials produced before the Tribunal, showing the disability of the injured appellant at 50% permanent and the monthly income of the deceased so Page 4 of 5 // 5 // held at Rs.8,000/-, appropriate compensation on different heads has not been awarded by the Tribunal. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Raj Kumar, it is the view of this Court that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation on different heads instead of allowing compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in total which is the nature of a consolidated compensation. 6.3. In view of such irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dtd.10.05.2016, so passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Balasore in MAC Case No.152/253 of 2012/2011 and remits the matter to the Tribunal to re-assess the compensation and award compensation on different heads as due and admissible with passing of fresh award. The compensation so awarded and satisfied in the meantime as contended will be adjusted accordingly. Since the claim is of the year, 2011, this Court directs the Tribunal to re-decide the issue as directed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Dec-2024 11:26:33 Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 5th of December, 2024/Subrat Page 5 of 5