MACA/56/2009 of RABINDRA KU.PANDA Vs RENUBALA ACHARYA on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026 Order No. I.A. No.1444 of 2023

09.

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

2. This interlocutory application has been filed at the instance of the Appellant-Claimant with a prayer for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing of the appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

4. Considering the grounds taken in the interlocutory application, the delay of 2 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.

5. The I.A. is disposed of.

MACA No.56 of 2009

6. By filing the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Appellant-Claimant has approached this Court thereby challenging the impugned award dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Berhampur in M.A.C. Case No.54 of 2007.

7. By virtue of the impugned award dated 20.10.2008, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,000/- as has been determined in para-7 of the common judgment dated 20.10.2008. The Appellant- Claimant being aggrieved by such quantum of compensation has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

8. The brief fact of the case leading to filing of the preset appeal, in short, is that on 10.11.2001 at about 11.00 P.M. while the Appellant-Claimant and his brother Kali Charan Panda were coming from Bhubaneswar to Berhampur in a Marshal vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02-J-0808, they met with an accident near Narayani Chhak, as a result of which, Kalicharan Panda, the brother of the Appellant- Claimant, died at the spot due to severe head injury and the Appellant-Claimant sustained compound fracture and grievous head injuries on his person. The Appellant- Claimant was initially shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for his treatment. Subsequently, he had to undergo treatment in Nijam’s Institute of Medical Science Panjakuta, Hyderabad. Though it has been alleged that the Appellant-Claimant has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment and eventually lost his vision and become totally disabled, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant while assailing the quantum of compensation awarded, at the outset, contended that same is very low and not commensurate with the injury sustained by the Appellant- Claimant. He further submitted that the Appellant-Claimant was working in a daily Newspaper Organization as an Editor and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Appellant-Claimant has claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality by ignoring the medical evidence that was produced on behalf of the Appellant-Claimant before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the Appellant-Claimant. The Appellant-Claimant initially was undergoing treatment at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and thereafter he has undergone surgery at Nijam’s Institute of Medical Science, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant further contended that although such medical documents have been filed before the Tribunal, however, the original copy of the bill of the expenses incurred at Nijam’s Institute of Medical Science, Hyderabad could not be filed and Xerox copy thereof was filed. On such ground, the Tribunal has denied the expenses incurred on the treatment of the Appellant-Claimant at Nijam’s Institute of Medical Science, Hyderabad.

10. With regard to the injury of the Appellant-Claimant, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended before this Court that the injuries sustained by the Appellant-Claimant are solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and such fact has been confirmed by the P.M. Report submitted in the connected criminal case wherein a charge sheet has also been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal, while believing the accident to be a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, has denied the claim of the Appellant-Claimant on account of the injury sustained by the Appellant-Claimant.

11. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant further contended that the amount spent on the treatment of the Appellant-Claimant has been grossly reduced and that no amount has also been awarded on account of the loss of income due to injury and consequential hospitalization. He also contended that nothing has been awarded on the ground of mental harassment and agony suffered by the Appellant-

Claimant, as a result of the aforesaid accident. With regard to the injury sustained and the hospitalization, the tribunal has accepted the same, which is corroborated by the evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended that the impugned award needs interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and that the quantum of compensation be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

12. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment. While supporting the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended before this Court that the Appellant-Claimant has failed to establish the expenditure incurred by him during his treatment. He further submitted that though the Tribunal has believed the accident and the consequential injury sustained by the injured, however, due to failure on the part of the Appellant-Claimant to produce bills and medical documents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the impugned award is not liable to be interfered with.

13. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned award, this Court found that the Tribunal has come to a conclusion, after taking evidence on behalf of the parties, that the Appellant-Claimant has sustained injuries and such injuries are directly relatable to the motor accident. However, while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the Appellant has sustained head injuries, for which, he was required to undergo treatment not only at the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack but also at Nijam’s Institute of Medical Science, Hyderabad. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is too low considering the injury sustained as well as the treatment undergone by the Appellant-Claimant. This Court also found that the learned Tribunal has not completely ignored the medical documents filed by the Appellant-Claimant before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the

Tribunal requires modification. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to modify the awarded amount.

14. Hence, it is directed that the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of such enhanced awarded amount. In the event the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company deposits the enhanced awarded amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the Appellant-Claimant in terms of the impugned judgment.

15. With the aforesaid modification, the MACA stands partly allowed.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge Debasis

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 09-Sep-2026 11:03:25 Signature Not Verified