MACA/1279/2024 of D.M., NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,BBSR Vs RABI NAIK on 27 August 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimants. Although, the notice was issued to the Respondent No.2-owner, the A.D. has not been received back by the office. However, the postal tracking report reveals that the notice has been delivered to the addressee. Accordingly, the notice on Respondent No.2 is treated to be sufficient. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein.

2. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, the Appellant-Insurance Company seeks to challenge the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed in M.A.C. No.06 of 2018 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-4th

M.A.C.T., Kantamal. Learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that since the right of recovery has been granted to the Appellant-Insurance Company, in the present appeal the Insurance Company confines the challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant- Respondent No.1. While assailing the quantum of compensation that has been awarded, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the compensation awarded on the ground of functional disability is on the higher side. In the said context, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, while drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned award, submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality by awarding compensation on the ground of permanent disability, and has assessed the loss of future earning at 70%. He further contended that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. decided in Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal is required to assess the loss of income vis-à-vis the functional disability sustained by the injured. Though the Tribunal has held that, being a daily- wage labourer, the injured is unable to earn his livelihood on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, it has assessed his loss of earning capacity at 70%. Being aggrieved by such assessment of the loss of earning capacity, the Appellant- Insurance Company seeks revision of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-claimant, on the other hand supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He further contended that taking into consideration the age, the avocation and the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding a total compensation of Rs.12,17,775/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent- claimants submitted before this Court that the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On a careful analysis of the rival contentions, the background facts and the materials available on record, and upon close scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2024 at Annexure-1, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties can be amicably resolved, particularly as the difference between the parties is marginal. Accordingly, this Court suggested to the parties that they may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-claimants submitted before this Court that in the event the Insurance Company raises the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal, he will have no objection to the same.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company left it to the discretion of the Court. However, he further contended that any amount determined by this Court shall be accompanied by the right of recovery in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence.

7. Considering such submissions, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it proper to revise the total compensation amount and, accordingly, modifies the total compensation amount to Rs,10,00,000/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the awarded amount. The right of recovery which was already been granted by the Tribunal in accordance with law shall remain with the Appellant-Insurance Company. The statutory deposit shall be refunded upon production of the acknowledgement evidencing deposit of the awarded amount. The Registry shall refund the statutory deposit along with the accrued interest on an application being filed by the Appellant.

8. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th August, 2026/ Rubi/ Sr. Stenographer

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 31-Aug-2026 11:45:37 Signature Not Verified