MACA/539/2007 of RAMAKANTA PRADHAN Vs BANITA KUMBHAR on 3 September 2026

ORDER

03.09.2026 Order No.

20.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Owner of the motor bike. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

3. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of the offending bike has approached this Court thereby challenging the judgment/award dated 27.02.2007 passed in MAC Case No.09 of 2006 by the Additional District Judge-cum-MACT(III), Sonepur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.01,06,000/-.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the facts of the present case it is revealed that the deceased was going by a bicycle from Rampur to village Badbhalupali on the main road leading from Rampur to Barpali, on 17.02.2005, at about 1:30 P.M. met with an accident with the offending motor vehicle which was being driven by the Appellant-Owner in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of such accident, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on his body. Thereafter, he was shifted to the nearby hospital and, while undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to his injuries. It has also been stated that the Appellant had spent around Rs.50,000/- for the treatment of the injured.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Owner of the motorbike, while challenging the impugned award, disputed the assessment and determination of the income of the deceased and the award of total compensation amount of Rs.1,06,000/- to the deceased. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the deceased was aged about 70 years and that he was a labourer and nor a farmer. It was also contended that taking into consideration the advanced age of the deceased it is difficult to believe that he was working as a labourer. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the assessment of the learned Tribunal accepting Rs.5,000/- as monthly income and accordingly Rs.40,000/- as annual income is on the higher side. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned award is erroneous to the extent of the calculation of the income of the deceased and the consequential award of the compensation amount.

6. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned award as well as the surrounding facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned award. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. It is further directed that in the event the awarded amount has not been deposited in the meantime, the same shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. In the event of failure, it is open to the claimant to execute the award in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Sisir

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 07-Sep-2026 19:57:44 Signature Not Verified