Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.481 of 2014 CNR No. ODHC010261602014 Debasingh Bhatra (since dead through L.Rs) ..... Appellants Represented by Adv. – Mr. Dhananjaya Mund -versus- Kalandi Charan Mallik &Another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – None (for R-1) Mr. G.P. Dutta (for R-2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 27.08.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). Misc. Case No.965 of 2014 2. This Interlocutory application has been filed by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner with a prayer for condonation of delay of 20days in presentation of the appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Page 2 of 6. Company. 4. Perused the I.A. application, considering the grounds taken in the I.A. for condonation of delay, this Court is inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 20 days in presentation of the appeal is condoned. 5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed. I.A. No.130 of 2022 6. This application has been filed with a prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased-Appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has no objection to such substitution. Accordingly, the prayer for substitution is allowed. 9. The legal heirs of the deceased Appellant be substituted and brought on record. 10. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of. MACA No.481 of 2014 11. The consolidated copy of the appeal memo was filed in Court today after serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, which is taken on record. Page 3 of 6. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 13. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1-Owner. 14. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgement assailed in the present appeal. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant seek to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the court of the learned District Judge- cum-M.A.C.T., Nabarangpur in MAC No.29 of 2012 by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2014. 15. Learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased Appellant- Claimant at the outset contended that while assessing the disability of the Petitioner the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the injured had sustained 40% Permanent disability. It was further contended that on such ground the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation for loss of future prospects. However, against the loss of future prospects, the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount. He also contended that since there was permanent disability, the learned Tribunal should have adopted the mathematical method while calculating the compensation amount to be paid to the claimants. 16. On such ground the learned counsel for the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant sought for enhancement of the Page 4 of 6. compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 17. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality. He further submitted that the disability that has been shown is of a tainted nature and of a particular limb of the injured. The disability sustained by the injured could not be construed as a functional one which would result in loss of future prospect. 18. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vrs. Vibhor Fialok and Another decided in Civil Appeal Nos.1337-1338 of 2019 vide judgement dated 18.02.2025, and submitted before this Court that in a case where the claimant had sustained functional disability of a particular limb, such disability is to be calculated proportionately. In the reported case, while calculating the loss of future prospects, disability of the whole body compared to the disabled limb, is to be assessed at the rate of 1/4th of total disability, as determined by the doctor who examined the injured. By referring to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Appellant- Claimant is entitled to loss of future prospects proportionate to the sustained functional disability of the particular limb. 19. On such ground learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company contended that the claim of the Appellant- Page 5 of 6. Claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,65,680/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Only) on the basis of the calculation indicated hereinabove is not sustainable in law. 20. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides on a careful analysis of their submissions, further taking into consideration the impugned award as well as the grounds stated in the appeal memo, and on a careful reading of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted case, this Court is of the view that the matter can very well be settled amicably in the spirit of the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, this Court suggested the counsel for both sides to settle the matter amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant contended that in the event the compensation amount is enhanced by further consolidated sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) the claimants would be satisfied with such enhancement. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company on the other hand although initially objected to the same, he later on submitted that the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is ready and willing to settle the dispute by leaving the quantum of compensation to the discretion of this Court. On a careful analysis of facts as well as the injury and taking note of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the view that in the event the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant are paid a consolidated Page 6 of 6. amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in addition to awarded amount the same would serve the ends of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant accepted the same. The counsel for the Insurance Company also did not dispute the same. 22. In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties, the present appeal is being disposed of by directing the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit a further enhanced consolidated amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks hence in addition to the awarded amount. 23. Such consolidated amount shall be in addition to the amount which has already been deposited before the Tribunal and the total amount so deposited along with the consolidated amount awarded now shall be disbursed in favour of the LRs of the deceased Appellant-Claimant as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment. 24. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Suchitra