Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.27 of 2007 CNR No. ODHC010029672007 Jadu Naik ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.sarat Ku.mohanty -versus- N.I.CO.LTD ..... Respondent Represented by Adv. - M/S P.K.TRIPATHY, A.K.NAYAK, S.TRIPATHY CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.08.2026 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-National Insurance Company. None app ears on behalf of Respondent No.2-United Insurance Company. Despite valid service of notice. 3. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein. 4. At the outset it is stated by learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant that the owner of the vehicle had died during the pendency of the MAC case. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act. The Claimant-Appellant has approached this Court challenging judgment dated 16.09.2006 Page 2 of 3. passed in MAC Case No.371 of 1991 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar. 5. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering in favour of the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that taking into consideration the injury sustained by the Claimant-Appellant, the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in not awarding a higher compensation amount. He further submitted that due to the injury sustained by the Claimant he could not pursue his duties for several days. Moreover, due to such injury, the Claimant has fallen into a State of mental agony. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant claims for enhancement of the compensation amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1- Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal and submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the compensation amount. He further contended that the Claimant had sustained minor injury for which he was treated and discharged on the same day. Therefore, he has not incurred any loss of income. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the Parties and on a careful examination of the background facts, as well as on close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the matter can be resolved Page 3 of 3. amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat, considering the fact that the same is pending since long. Accordingly, the Parties were encouraged to settle the matter amicably. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant contended that in the event the quantum of compensation is modified a sum of Rs.10,000/-, the same is satisfied. Considering the factual backgrounds of the present case, since the matter is pending since long, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the order to the extent that the Respondent No.1-Insurance company shall pay a consolidated a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Claimant- Appellant. Let the aforesaid modified amount of Rs.10,000/- distributed proportionately between both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit, the amount shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimant-Appellant is strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the MACA stands disposed of. 9. Office is directed to communicate the order to Respondent No.2. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT