High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.757 of 2022 Rajranjan Mahara harana …. Appellant Ap Mr. P.K. Mishra, Ad , Advocate -Versus- Supriya Roul and and another Respo Mrs. P. Mishra, Ad espondents Advocate …. CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 06. 1. Heard M d Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the e claimant ORDER 10.04.2024 appellantand Mrs Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel for responden dent No.2 Insurance Compan pany. 2. 3. None ap appears for respondent No.1 at the time of ca f call. Instant nt appeal is filed by the claimant appell pellant for enhancement of of compensation directed in M.A.C. Case N No.82 of 2013 by learn arned Additional District Judge-cum-3rdM M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur on t on the grounds stated therein. 4. The cros cross-objection is at Flag-X filed by responden dent No.2 Insurance Compan pany. 5. A comp mpensation of Rs.7,29,100/- has been awar warded by learned Tribunal al to the claimant appellant which is sough ught to be enhanced and obj objected to by respondent No.2 Insurance com ompany. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mis Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant a t appellant would submit tha that the injured sustained 65% of permanent d nt disability Page 1 of 4 Pag and due to amp mputation of his left leg, it has resulted in in 100% functional disabili bility, however, learned Tribunal has assessed sed it 40% which is unjust an t and not legally tenable. It is further submit mitted that learned Tribunal h al has not allowed any sum towards future p e prospects which the claim aimant appellant is otherwise entitled to a o at 40% considering the a e age in the category of below 40 years. It s. It is also claimed that less a ss amount of sum added on head of pain & suffering and loss of ameni enities notwithstanding the fact that the treatm atment and expense thereon w n was incurred for an amount of Rs.15 lac refe referring to Exts.13 and 14. 7. On the the contrary, Mrs. Mishra, learned coun ounsel for respondent No.2 o.2 Insurance Company with the cross-o objection submits that the the impugned award is absolutely justified ed and in accordance with ith law, hence, therefore, there should not ot be any enhancement in in favour of the claimant appellant. It is is further submitted by M Mrs. Mishra that the functional disability lity of the claimant appellan llant cannot be 100% as it has been pleaded ed for and rightly, therefore, ore, in absence of any evidence received th through a Member of the M Medical Board, learned Tribunal did not com ommit any error or wrong in g in fixing it at 40%. Furthermore, there has b as been no evidence with re regard to the medical expenses incurred ed by the claimant appellan llant for a sum of Rs.15 lac and hence, correctly ctly learned Tribunal allowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- lac which is, th therefore, not to be disturb urbed. Furthermore, it is submitted that the c e claimant appellant has be been reasonably compensated for the pa pain and suffering and loss oss of amenities. The contention of Mrs. Mishr ishra is that while assessing th the disability and compensation, itdepends nds on the impact and effect ect of disability on the earning capacity of the the injured and since the cla claimant appellant was working as a busin usinessman, therefore, even o capable to n on account of disability, he is not fully incap Pag Page 2 of 4 carry on the busin usiness, hence, it has to be held at 40% and n d not even 65%. 8. In fact, ct, the claimant appellant has been treated ated as an unskilled labour w r with a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. 9. As to the the disability at 65% as supported by the dec decision of the Medical Board oard, the Court is of the considered view that hat learned Tribunal was not not justified to hold it at 40% towards fu functional disability having r g regard to the fact that there has been amput putation of leg. Even though, gh, it is contended by Mrs. Mishra, learned cou counsel for respondent No.2 o.2 Insurance Company that the vocation ion of the claimant appellan llant is not likely to be affected as he would still still be able to carry on the bu business but taking into account the disability ity with the amputation of leg leg, the Court is not inclined to accept the s said plea rather to hold tha that it has materially affected his functional ab ability and future prospects to to run the business and hence, has to be held eld at 90% instead of 100%. %. It is so concluded subscribing the view expr xpressed by the Apex Court i rt in the case of Mohan Soni Vrs. Ram Avtar vtar Tomar and others 2012 ( (1) TAC 385 SC In other words, keeping in v view the settled the positio sition as enunciated in the decision (supra), th , the Court reaches at a conc onclusion that even though the functional disa disability is not to be treated ted at 100%, the same to be assessed at 90%. %. In other words, with a pe permanent disability of 65% vis-à-vis the c e claimant appellant, the fun functional disability is assessed at 90% for the the kind of injury sustained w d with amputation of leg. With respect to th the future prospects and asse assessment on the loss of earning, learned Trib ribunal has not allowed the s e same without assigning any reason therefor . Having considered the n e nature of injury which hasmaterially affec ffected the claimant’s ability and his age, the Court is of the further view iew that he is entitled to 40% 40% on future prospects upon the loss of ea earning of Page 3 of 4 Pag 90%, which has b as been assessed at. The Court is also inclined t ed to add a sum with Rs.40,0 0,000/- each on the heads of pain and suffer ffering and loss of amenities ties. The Court is however not inclined to a o add any amount on the he head of medical expenses etc. which is is already assessed at and and allowed for an amount of Rs.3,5 .3,50,000/- notwithstanding g Exts.13 and 14, as in that regard, learned T ed Tribunal did not commit a it any error. Hence, the decision thereon by by learned Tribunal does not not suffer from any legal infirmity. Having sa g said that, the amount of co f compensation with a recalculation stands ar arrived at Rs.15,32,140/-, wh which in the considered view of the Court, is is payable to claimant appell pellant along with an interest of 6% per annum um. 10. Hence, I It is ordered. 11. In the r e result, the appeal stands allowed with th the cross- objection dismisse issed. Consequently, the impugned award da dated 15th November, 2022 022 passed in M.A.C. Case No.82 of 2013 13 by the learned Additiona ional District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T, Jagatsing tsinghpur is hereby modified ied to the extent as aforesaid with a direc irection to respondent No.2 o.2 Insurance Company to deposit an am amount of Rs.15,32,140/- pa payable along with interest at the rate of of 6% per annum from the he date of application filed within eight week eeks which shall immediately ly thereafter be disbursed in favour of the c e claimant appellant. The Co Court further directs that the cheque which h h has been deposited by re respondent No.2 Insurance Company s y shall be returnedto it by by learned Tribunal for being re-deposited w d with the allowed compensa ensation amount within the above stipulated pe d period. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 15-Apr-2024 12:41:42 Rojina (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4 Pag