Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.562 of 2014 CNR No. ODHC010049442014 Harmohan Mahanty ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s.antaryami Dash -versus- ABHILAS MISHRA ..... Respondent Represented by Adv. - M/S.MITALI JESTI CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 13.08.2026 Order No. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Perused the office note it appears that the admission notice which was issued to the Respondent No.1 could not be served and that notice has been returned by the postal authorities with and endorsement, “firm abolished”. 3. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Respondent No.1-Owner was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal and the award has been passed against the Respondent No.1 ex- parte with a further direction that the awarded amount of compensation shall be realized form the Opposite Party No.2- Insurance Company in the present appeal. It appears that in view of the aforesaid development no notice can be validly served from the Respondent No.1-owner. Page 2 of 5. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1997 and that the appeal is pending since 2014, this Court, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Appellant as well as the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, takes up the appeal for final hearing. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant as well as the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 6. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claimant-Appellants have approached this Court with a prayer for enhancement of the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal in its award dated 26.11.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.1072 of 1995 by the learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while the Claimant-Appellant, on 31.08.1995 at about 3.00 A.M., was standing on the left side of the road and he was waiting for a bus, the offending bus bearing registration No.OR- 02-A-6955 came from the Sambalpur side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Appellant. As a result of which the Appellant sustained injuries for which he was shifted to the SCB MCH, Cuttack for treatment. Accordingly, a criminal case was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle as P.S. Case No.54 of 1995. He further submitted that the Appellant- Claimant was working as the Chairman/President of Angul in Central Cooperative Bank, Angul and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.2,700/- per month. However, due to the accident the Appellant-Claimant lost his job. Accordingly the Claimant initially approached the learned Tribunal claiming a total Page 3 of 5. compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand) for the partial disability sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. 8. Although notice was issued to the Respondent No.1-Owner by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1-Owner remained ex-parte. The Respondent No.2- Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and denied all the allegations and the liability arising out of the aforesaid vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal identified four issues for determining the liability as well as the quantum of the compensation. Finally, vide the judgment dated 26.11.2013 the learned Tribunal. Taking into consideration the annual income of the Claimant-Appellant to be Rs.18,000/-, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,97,200/- along with interest @ 7% to be paid by the owner of the vehicle Respondent No.1 with a further direction that in the event the Respondent No.1 fails to pay the compensation amount, the Petitioner was given liberty to realise the compensation amount from the Respondent No.2 therein by following due process of law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Appellant, at the outset, contended that while determining the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has reduced of the income of the Claimant-Appellant to Rs.18,000/- per annum, despite the Claimant-Appellant earning Rs.2,700/- per month was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. He further contended that though the right multiplier has been applied, the amount of annual income has been basically reduced by the learned Tribunal, which is not based on documentary evidence on record. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality by saddling the liability on the Respondent No.1. It was submitted that since Page 4 of 5. the vehicle was insured, the liability should have been saddled on the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. On the aforesaid two grounds learned counsel appearing for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2013. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income as well as saddling the liability on the Respondent No.1. Taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner on his own has stated that he was earning Rs.700/- per month and he has claimed a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in his claim application, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in accepting the income of the Appellant-Claimant as Rs.18,000/- and thereby awarding a total compensation amount of Rs.1,97,200/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality by passing the aforesaid award. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is not required to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, it was contended that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Claimant- Appellant as well as the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company and in the absence of Respondent No.1, who was set ex-parte before the Tribunal, despite the case record revealing that no notice was served on the Respondent No.1-Owner, this Court proceeded to hear the appeal finally. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1995 and that the Page 5 of 5. Appellant-Claimant is waiting to receive the compensation amount for almost three decades, on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned award, this Court is of the view that the same does not call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 12. In view of my aforesaid analysis, the present appeal is being disposed of by modifying the direction in the impugned award to the extent that the compensation amount along with the interest shall be paid by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company to the Claimant-Appellant, let the awarded amount be deposited with the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. Further, taking into consideration the finding of the learned Tribunal in its award, this Court grants right of recovery to the Appellant-Insurance Company from the Respondent No.1. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Sisir Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT