Misc. Case No. 783 of 1997 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.250 of 2022 (In the matter of application under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988). Parsuram Rout -versus- Batakrushna Sahoo & Another … … Appellant Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : None Mr. S. Roy, Advocate(R-2) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 17.10.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is an appeal U/S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) by the appellant- claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) by way of the judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.783 of 1997 granting compensation to the appellant-claimant for a sum of MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 1 of 10 Rs.51,040/- along with interest @6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim petition i.e. on 08.09.1997 within one month thence in an application U/S.166 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has also imposed a cost of Rs.500/- to R-2-M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Cuttack, who being the insurer of the offending vehicle has been directed to indemnify Respondent No.1 (R1) by satisfying the award. 2. The foundational facts giving rise to the claim are that on 22.03.1997 at about 3.30P.M., the appellant-claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries while boarding the offending bus bearing Regd. No.OR-04-7394 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Accordingly, Badachana P.S. Case No.43 of 1997 was registered and the injured-appellant was immediately shifted to Badachana C.H.C. and thereafter, to S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack for his better treatment. According to the appellant-claimant, he was owner-cum-driver of the Tempo Trax bearing Regd. No. OR-04-A-254 and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 2 of 10 but due to accident, he became disabled and could not perform his day to day work. The appellant-claimant accordingly filed the claim petition by impleading the respondents herein as the OPs which was registered before the learned Tribunal in Misc. Case No.783 of 1997. In response to the claim, the respondent- cum-OP No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle, did not participate and remained ex-parte, but the respondent-cum-OP No.2-insurer filed his written statement denying all the pleadings of the appellant- claimant and called upon him to strict proof of the claim. 3. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival pleadings, stuck with four issues and answered all the issues in favour of the appellant-claimant and granted compensation to the appellant-claimant to the amount indicated supra, but being aggrieved, the appellant-
Legal Reasoning
claimant has challenged the award before this Court in this appeal for enhancement. MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 3 of 10 4.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Antaryami Dash, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, however, confines his submission on two issues; firstly, for non-consideration of disability of the claimant and secondly, for incorrect assessment of the income of the claimant by holding him as a driver. The learned counsel for the appellant accordingly prays to enhance the award. 4.1. In resisting the claim of the appellant, the R-2-insurer being represented by Mr. Somanath Roy, learned counsel, however, strongly refutes such submissions advanced for the appellant-claimant by inter alia stating that the learned Tribunal has rightly not taken into consideration the disability of the appellant, since there is no evidence to link the disability of the appellant with the accident and the learned Tribunal in the absence of proof of income of the claimant has rightly taken his income at Rs.52/- per day by considering the daily wage of a skilled labourer MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 4 of 10 prevaling then. Mr. Roy, accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears dispute only with regard to the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal and there is no dispute with regard to the findings of the learned Tribunal on the other issues. In straightaway coming to the issue of assessment of the income of the injured-appellant, it appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the parameters as fixed by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vrs. Ajay Kumar; (2011) 1 SCC 343, but the dispute with regard to non-consideration of disability by the learned Tribunal, it appears to this Court that the claimant-appellant has relied upon documents under Exts.9/c to 9/h, 10, 10/a & 11. However, the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated such documents, which has been stated in paragraph-9 of the judgment that Ext.9/c, the OPD ticket dated 14.11.2012 of S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 5 of 10 shows that the appellant-claimant was suffering from pain on his left foot. Similarly, Ext.9/f indicates about appellant-claimant suffering from pain due to osteoporosis, whereas Ext.11 which is the OPD ticket of SVNIRTAR, Olatpur reveals about early stage of Lumbar spondylitis. Similarly, Ext.9/g, the OPD ticket dated 22.05.2016 of the S.C.B., M.C.H, Cuttack indicates that the appellant complained of pain over cervical region, whereas Ext.9/h, the OPD ticket dated 08.07.2016 reveals that the appellant-claimant had complained of pain all over his body. It is no doubt claimed by the appellant-claimant that he has sustained spinal injury, but not a single document has been filed to support or establish such fact. It is not out of place to mention here that Ext. 9/c to 9/h, 10, 10/a & 11 are of the year 2012 to 2016, whereas the accident took place on 22.03.1997 and the appellant-claimant has admitted in his evidence that he has no paper in support of his treatment from 1997 to 2012. From a cumulative reading of the aforesaid facts together with the MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 6 of 10 judgment, it appears that the appellant-claimant has unsuccessfully attempted to connect the ailments “Osteoporosis and Lumbar Spondylitis” to be on account of the result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 22.03.1997 inasmuch as Lumbar Spondylitis and Osteoporosis are the ailments which are normally associated with some persons either due to age factor or on account of some other problem. 6. True it is that the appellant-claimant has produced the disability certificate issued to him under Ext.5 which was in fact issued to him in the year 2014 and thereby, the appellant-claimant has managed to obtain the disability certificate after the gap of 17 years from the date of accident, but the appellant-claimant has failed to link the disability certificate with the injury sustained by him in the accident. It is, therefore, very clear that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the disability certificate while computing compensation to the appellant-claimant. MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 7 of 10 7. On coming back to the other plea as raised by the appellant-claimant that his income has not been properly assessed, it appears that the appellant- claimant has proved Exts.6, 7 & 8 to say that he is the registered owner of the Tempo Trax, but the same fact has not been disputed by the respondent-insurer by producing any evidence. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant-claimant was the owner of the Tempo Trax at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the income of the appellant- claimant by holding him as a driver. It can be considered that the income of the driver must be less than the owner of the vehicle. Of course, the appellant- claimant has not produced any document to establish his monthly income at Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of accident, but nevertheless by making an intelligence speculation, it would not be improper to take his income at Rs.8,000/- per month at the relevant time of accident in the year 1997, however, the learned Tribunal has applied loss of earning during MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 8 of 10 the period of treatment for four months in respect of the appellant-claimant at Rs.5,040/- by taking him as a driver, but since the appellant-claimant was a registered owner of a vehicle and this Court having taken his monthly income at Rs.8,000/- per month, the loss of income of the appellant-claimant during the aforesaid period of treatment, it would come around Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 4). The learned Tribunal has also rightly granted Rs.15,000/- towards the pain and suffering of the appellant-claimant for the injuries so also Rs.30,000/- towards his treatment, which was in fact not challenged seriously by the appellant-claimant. It is, however, considered that the appellant-claimant must have spent some amount towards the cost of his transportation from the place of accident to C.H.C., Badchana and thereafter, from C.H.C., Badchana to S.C.B., M.C.H., Cuttack, which may be reasonably considered at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the modified compensation amount to the appellant-claimant would come around Rs.30,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.32,000/- + MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 9 of 10 Rs.5,000/- = Rs.82,000/-. Hence, the modified compensation is calculated at Rs.82,000/-. Further, the appellant-claimant is also entitled to interest @6% which the learned Tribunal has awarded. 8.
Decision
In the result, the appeal stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified and in addition to the cost of Rs.500/-, the appellant-claimant is entitled to receive from the insurer-cum-R-2 the modified compensation of Rs.82,000/- @6% interest which shall be paid to him within three months hence, failing which the appellant- claimant is at liberty to realize the same by due process of the Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Oct-2025 18:55:17 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th day of October, 2025/S.Sasmal MACA No.250 of 2022 Page 10 of 10