MACA/675/2024 of KALINGA KESHARI PARIDA Vs UNIT MANAGER, MICRO LEASING AND FUNDING LTD., ROURKELA on 27 August 2026

ORDER

27.08.2026 Order No. I.A No.1527 of 2024

03.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. This is an application with a prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that there exists a delay of 117 days in presentation of the appeal.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant, the delay of 117 days in the presentation of the appeal is condoned.

5. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. MACA No.675 of 2024

6. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

7. Despite valid service of notice, none appears for the owner- Respondent No.1.

8. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, the appellant-claimant has approached this Court thereby challenging the judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed in MAC No.47 of 2017 by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Vth MACT, Rourkela whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,539/- along with @ 6% in favour of the claimant.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that the Appellant-Claimant had sustained fracture injuries, as a result of which, he was confined to bed for a period of six months, thereafter, he was unable to perform his duties and, as such, was unable to earn his livelihood. It was also contended that the claimant-injured has produced the medical bill to the tune of Rs.55,000/- and odd and the same has been marked as exhibit. However, while awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal has not taken note of such admitted documents on record. He has also contended that the amount which has been awarded on the ground of loss of earning during the period of rest and hospitalization is to meagre. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant- Claimant contended before this Court the amount of total compensation is required to be revised by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment. He further contended that the claimant-appellant, who was working as a labourer, met with an accident and sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has taken into consideration the income the claimant-appellant as well as the loss of income arising out of such injury. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award does not call for any interference.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as, this Court is of the view that the matter can very well be resolved in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Accordingly, this Court gave a suggestion to the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that in the event the Appellant-Claimant is paid a further consolidated sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand), he will have no objection to the same.

13. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that leads the quantum of compensation to the discretion of this Court and any amount to be determined by this Court to be acceptable to the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

14. Taking into consideration the factual background of the present case as well as the evidence led from both sides, this Court in the larger interest of justice is of the view that enhancement of the quantum of compensation by a further consolidated sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation is modified to the extent that apart from the awarded amount, the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit a further consolidated amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. Such consolidated amount shall be in addition to the awarded amount along with interest deposited before the learned Tribunal. Further, it is directed that in the event such deposit may before the learned Tribunal has become invalid, the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall take steps within the aforesaid period of eight weeks to revalidate the same. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount in favour of the claimant as per the impugned judgment. It is needless to mention here that the right of recovery granted by the learned Tribunal remains untouched.

15. With the aforesaid observations/ modification, the Appeal stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Anil

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Aug-2026 15:00:14 Signature Not Verified