Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.497 of 2015 CNR No. ODHC010158962015 Sankar Naik ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. – Mr. Prabash Chandra Pattanaik -versus- Jaya Krushna Sahu and another ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. – Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.08.2026 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Prabash Chandra Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant as well as Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the appeal memo as well as the grounds taken therein. 3. Despite issuance of notice to the Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle, the notice has been returned to the office of this Court as undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee has left. 4. Since the appeal has been filed at the instance of the Appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, Page 2 of 6. there is no dispute with regard to liability. As such, notice to the Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle is waived. 5. By filing the present appeal, the Claimant-Appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation amount as has been awarded by the learned IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanjanagar in M.A.C. Case No.106 of 2010, vide judgment dated 12.03.2015. 6. The factual background of the case, in short, is that on 23.02.2010, the Appellant and another were travelling in course of their engagement as Coolie in the Truck bearing Registration No.OR-02-0007 from Birikote to Bhanjanagar after loading wood. The driver of the Truck was driving in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the Truck capsized on the P.W.D. road at Birikote Bridge. The Appellant-Claimant sustained injuries due to such accident. It also appears from the pleading that the Appellant-Claimant had undergone a surgery, as a result of which, the left arm of the Petitioner has been amputated above the elbow. As such, he is unable to perform his work. It is alleged that the Appellant has spent Rs.1,30,000/- towards his treatment which includes medicines, house rent etc. Accordingly, the Claimant approached the Tribunal with a prayer for grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Tribunal has found that the vehicle in question was Insured with the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the driver was having a valid driving license. Thus, the Tribunal has saddled the liability with the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Page 3 of 6. Rs.2,50,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the amount. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that the income of the Claimant-Appellant has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant submitted before this Court that although the Appellant-Claimant had claimed that he was getting salary at Rs.4,500/- per month, however, his employer has stated before the court that he was paying the Claimant Rs.3,900/-. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that there exists no dispute that the Appellant was earning more than Rs.100/- per day i.e. around Rs.3,000/- per month. He further contended that the monthly income as well as consequential annual income of the Appellant should have been assessed on the aforesaid basis. However, learned Tribunal has not discussed anything with regard to the income of the Appellant- Claimant and there is no specific finding with regard to the income of the Appellant-Claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended that on mere surmises and conjectures, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- without any discussion with regard to the income of the Appellant-Claimant. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant urged before this Court that the impugned judgment is fully erroneous and the same is legally unsustainable. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant also submitted that although the Claimant- Appellant has sustained 80% disability, the learned Tribunal has Page 4 of 6. not granted any compensation with regard to the functional disability sustained by the Claimant-Appellant in course of such accident. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended that the claim amount has not been correctly assessed and, therefore, the amount which has been awarded requires to be enhanced by taking into consideration the aforesaid two aspects of the matter. 10. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality. He further submitted that the award of compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest is just, proper and adequate and that the same does not require any modification. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company submitted before this Court that the appeal being devoid of merit, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, as well as the grounds taken in the appeal, further on close scrutiny of the impugned judgement dated 12.03.2015, this Court found that the learned Tribunal has completely misdirected itself while assessing and determining the compensation of amount as is payable to the Claimant-Appellant. On a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it appears that there exists no discussion and no finding with regard to the income of the Claimant-Appellant in the Page 5 of 6. impugned judgment. Further, it appears that although the Claimant-Appellant has sustained 80% disability and his right arm has been amputated above the elbow, nothing has been awarded in respect of loss of future prospect resulting from such functional disability. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned award dated 12.03.2015 is legally unsustainable and the same is required to be interfered by this Court in exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. At this juncture, learned counsels appearing for both sides submitted before this Court that the dispute involved in the present application can very well be resolved amicably. 12. This Court, upon a careful examination of the background facts, suggested the counsel for both sides to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Claimant- Appellant submitted before this Court that it would be just, fair and proper in the event the Claimant-Appellant is paid a further consolidated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and that the same would be in the larger interest of justice. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company left the matter to the discretion of this Court and submitted that in the event the compensation amount is modified by this Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall accept the same. 13. Taking note of the fact that the income of the Claimant- Appellant was not less than Rs.3,000/- per month and that the Claimant-Appellant at the time of accident was 50 years and, further taking into consideration the fact that his future earning is Page 6 of 6. definitely likely to be affected as the right arm of the Appellant- Claimant has been amputated and that the Appellant-Claimant is entitled to get some amount on account of loss of future income, this Court is of the view that in the event the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company pays a further consolidated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to the Appellant-Claimant, the same would be just, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2015 is modified to the extent that the Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company shall pay a further consolidated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to the Appellant-Claimant and such amount shall be deposited within eight weeks from today before the learned Tribunal. After the amount is deposited before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour of the Claimant- Appellant in accordance with law. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the MACA stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Designation: SECRETARY