Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1050 of 2007 CNR No. ODHC010009262007 Sudarsan Harijan ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.D.R.bhokta -versus- Hemendra Mohan Panda & Anr. ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - Netaji Sabyasachi Ghose (for R-2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.09.2026 Order No. I.A No.1422 of 2011 08. 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-Insurance Company, at the outset, contended that there exists a delay of 2 days in presentation of the appeal. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company, the delay of 2 days in the presentation of the appeal is condoned. 5. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. MACA No.1050 of 2007 6. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr.Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Page 2 of 5. Company. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of Respondent No.1. Perused the appeal memo as well as grounds stated in the appeal. 7. By filing the present appeal, the claimant-Appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount as has been awarded by the learned 1st MACT-cum-District Judge, Dhenkanal in MAC Case No.197 of 1990. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, contended that while awarding the compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has not taken note of the correct amount that has been spent on the treatment of the Appellant. Moreover, the actual amount has not been assessed properly on the ground that the Appellant, being a government employee, must have received some money from his office. He further submitted that the Tribunal, while arriving at a finding to the Issue Nos.2 to 4 at para-7 of the judgment, has categorically admitted that as a result of the accident there has been a shortening of left leg of the claimant by 2 inches for which the injured was limping. Such finding is based squarely on the evidence on record. He further submitted that on the face of such evidence, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount with regard to the future treatment of the Appellant for shortening of his leg, which is a direct result of the aforesaid accident. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the awarded amount to be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company, on the other hand, wholeheartedly supported Page 3 of 5. the judgment of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-. He further submitted that the Appellant was hospitalized for a period of about eight days in Burla Hospital. Moreover, the Appellant, who is admittedly a government employee, was getting Rs.1,100/- monthly salary. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as on a close scrutiny of the impugned award dated 02.07.2007, this Court observes that the Appellant-claimant has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount. The claim of the claimant-Appellant is that he is entitled to more compensation as the learned Tribunal has not taken note of the permanent impairment that has been caused to the right leg of the claimant as a direct result of the aforesaid accident and the claimant-Appellant also had to undergo treatment thereafter. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error by not awarding any amount for the future medical expenses of the claimant. 11. On a careful analysis of the submissions made by counsels from both sides and on an analysis of the rival contention, further on a careful scrutiny of the impugned award, this Court found that the learned Tribunal in para-7, while answering issue Nos.2 to 4, has categorically held that there is a shortening of the left leg of he Page 4 of 5. claimant-Appellant by 2 inches for which the claimant was limping. However, nothing has been awarded towards future medical expenses of the claimant-Appellant. It is not disputed that the Appellant-claimant was required to undergo treatment in future for the disability caused to his left leg. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the claim amount as has been awarded needs upward revision. 12. While reassessing the compensation, this Court is of the view that that the loss caused to the claimant can never be truly compensated, however, the compensation to be awarded must be based on the realistic view of the matter and an attempt has to be made by the Tribunal as well as the Court to award a fair compensation based on the evidence collected during trial. In the present case, it appears that the claimant-Appellant has failed to produce evidence with regard to the medical expenses incurred by him during his treatment, even though he has claimed for enhanced compensation. It is not disputed that there exists evidence with regard to shortening of the left leg of the claimant-Appellant by 2 inches and the same requires future medical treatment of the claimant-Appellant. Therefore, to assess the actual compensation amount, some amount of guesswork is necessary by this Court. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that enhancement of the compensation amount by a further consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- would be just, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the award dated 02.07.2007 is modified to the extent that the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall pay a further consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/-. Since it is submitted by Page 5 of 5. learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that the awarded amount has already been deposited and paid to the Appellant, the further consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. On such deposit, the awarded amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant-Appellant in terms of the judgment thereafter. 14. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal stands disposed of. . ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil