Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.193 of 2007 CNR No. ODHC010342972007 Biranchi Naik ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.sarat Ku.mohanty -versus- Gurudayal Singh Nagi and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - PRASHANTA KUMAR MAHALI, B.N.MAHALI, S.R.DASH CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.09.2026 Order No. 18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). I.A. No.1899 of 2025 2. This is an application with a prayer for condonation of delay in presentation of the appeal by the Claimant-Appellant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Page 2 of 5. 5. By filing the aforesaid I.A., the Claimant-Appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 702 days in the presentation of the appeal as has been pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. Perused the grounds taken in the application. Although the Claimant- Appellant has not fully justified the delay in presentation of the appeal, however, taking into consideration the fact that the Claimant is a poor labourer and had sustained injuries, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, is inclined to condone the delay. 6. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed. MACA No.193 of 2007 7. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondents-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. The Appellant-Claimant seeks to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar in MAC Case No.240 of 1994. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,600/- in a case of injury sustained by the Claimant and such amount was directed to be deposited within 45 days, failing which it was directed that the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that in the accident which took place on 07.03.1994, the Appellant-Claimant has sustained grievous injury as a result of which he was hospitalized from 07.03.1994 to 13.03.1994. It was Page 3 of 5. also brought to the notice of the Court that the Claimant sustained fracture on his leg which is grievous in nature, and for which, he was to undergo treatment as an indoor patient at Karanjia Hospital for seven days. Further, it appears that the accident, as well as the fact that the vehicle was duly insured and that the driver had a valid driving licence is not disputed by either side. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant, while assailing the impugned award, contended before this Court that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing the injury properly and he has also not taken into consideration the expenses incurred by the Appellant-Claimant in his treatment. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that no compensation amount has been awarded for the period for which the Petitioner was not able to perform his work. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that due to a fracture inuury a person is unable to perform his normal work for at least two months. However, the learned Tribunal has granted loss of income for a period of six days only. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned award is erroneous and that the same is liable to be interfered with in the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Insurance Company on the other hand supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal. He further contended that the learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,600/-. He further contended that the Appellant-Claimant has failed to produce any medical documents relating to his treatment and expenses incurred, before the Page 4 of 5. Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount on such account and, by following the schedule, it has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the injury sustained and another sum of Rs.600/- for the loss of income during hospitalization. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondents-Insurance Company contended that the Appellant is not entitled to receive any enhanced claim as claimed in the present appeal and, that the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties, on a careful examination of the rival contentions as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2005, this Court found that although the Tribunal has believed the accident and the vehicle was insured, however, in the absence of any evidence supporting the expenses incurred on treatment, the Tribunal has awarded a consolidated a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Moreover, it has awarded only Rs.600/- towards the loss of income during the period of hospitalization. On a careful analysis of the award, this Court found the fact that the claimant had sustained a fracture injury, has not been disbelieved by the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record. Thus taking into consideration the fact that a person who has sustained a fracture injury is not be able to perform his normal work for a period of at least 2 to 3 months. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding the loss of income during hospitalization as well as the consequential period for recovery from the injury sustained by the Appellant. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the awarded amount needs modification. Accordingly, taking into Page 5 of 5. consideration the factual background of the present case as well as the materials on record, further on a conspectus of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both side, this Court is of the view that further consolidated a sum of Rs.15,000/- is required to be paid by the Respondents-Insurance Company to the Appellant- Claimant. Let the enhanced amount to be deposited within a period of eight weeks’ before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimant-Appellant. This Court further opposes the direction of the learned Tribunal granting a right of recovery to the Respondents-Insurance Company. 13. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands partly allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Sisir Designation: Personal Assistant