MACA/83/2024 of D.M., M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs PUSPALATA BISWAL on 13 August 2026

ORDER

13.08.2026 Order No.

I.A. No.362 of 2024

03.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. This is an application at the instance of the Appellant- Insurance Company with a prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. P. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company at the outset contended that there exists a delay of 183 days in the preparation and presentation of the appeal. While explaining the delay in presenting the appeal, learned counsel for the insurance company contended before this Court that due to procedural requirements there was some delay in preparation of the appeal and presentation thereof before this Court.

5. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company prays for condonation of delay and for hearing the appeal on merit.

6. Learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the same has not been properly explained.

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the delay in presentation of the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1800/- by the appellant to the Claimants-Respondents. The cost is paid in Court and the same is acknowledged by the counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

04. MACA No.83 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent.

2. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment dated 13th March, 2023 passed in MAC case No.845 of 2017 by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-4th M.A.C.T., Cuttack.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company at the outset contended that the company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act thereby assailing the impugned award dated 13.03.2023, at Annexure-1, on two grounds, i.e. delay in lodging of the FIR and, fixation of quantum of compensation considering the fact that the injured was a boy aged about 11 years.

He further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in the impugned judgment, i.e. to the tune of Rs.16,88,779/-, is on the higher side and that the same requires modification.

4. In course of arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the Appellant- Insurance Company in the present appeal confines his challenge to the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the learned tribunal. While assailing the quantum of compensation that has been awarded by the learned tribunal by virtue of the impugned award at Annexure-1, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injured, who has sustained injury in the road accident, was a boy aged about 11 years. He further contended that the accident took place in the year 2017.

5. Referring to the aforesaid factual position involved in the present case, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted to this Court that in similar type of matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the age of the injured and has awarded lesser amount as compensation. He further contended that the injured, who was aged about 11 years, was definitely not having any income of his own, therefore, the learned tribunal has fixed the income on a notional basis to assess the future loss of income by taking the income of the injured at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. Fixation of such income per month of the injured/claimant at Rs.7,500/- was seriously disputed by the Appellant-Insurance Company. He further contended that such income has been fixed purely on notional basis and that the actual income would be much less than the amount which has been fixed by the learned tribunal. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company assailed the impugned award submitted before this Court that the award as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is unsustainable in law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent on the other hand, entirely supported the award of the learned tribunal at Annexure-1. While supporting the grant of compensation to the injured, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent contended that the learned tribunal, while fixing the income of the injured on notional basis, has taken note of several judgments and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submitted that after a detailed analysis of the factual background and the legal position governing the field, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the loss of future income is to be assessed by taking into consideration the notional income of the injured at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent submitted before this Court that such fixation of monthly income calls for interference by this Court, at this stage, as the same is not based on any documentary evidence and it was assessed on notional basis.

7. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for both sides and on scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2023, at Annexure-1, this Court found that the Appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the learned tribunal. It is not disputed at bar with regard to the fixation of the liability and that the accident on the given date and time. Therefore, this Court, while confining its adjudication to the quantum of compensation deems it proper to consider the same in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Accordingly, a proposal was given to the parties to settle the matter amicably. The learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent submitted before this Court that the Claimant-Respondent would be satisfied in the event the awarded amount is reduced to Rs.13,00,000/- along with the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance company on the other hand, after due deliberation, left the matter to the discretion of this Court, and submitted that the quantum fixed by this Court would be acceptable to the Appellant- Insurance Company.

8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid position, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it proper to modify the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from the existing amount of Rs.16,88,779/- to Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of filing of the application till payment of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the Appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified amount before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall proceed to disburse such amount in terms with the judgment at Annexure-1. Further, it is directed that the application being filed by the appellant/insurance company, the statutory deposit along with interest be released in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of.

Sumitra Further, this Court sets aside the payment of penal interest at the rate of 12%.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)

Judge

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2026 19:03:24 Signature Not Verified