Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1195 of 2016 CNR No. ODHC010114132016 Harekrushna Mohanty ..... Appellant Represented by Adv. - M/s. Dhananjaya Mund -versus- Neelam Kumar Sharma & Anr. ..... Respondents Represented by Adv. - M/s.G.P.Dutta, S.K.Mohnaty, B.K.Sahoo, S.Parween (for R-2) M/s.J.K.Khuntia, H.S.Deo (for R-1) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.08.2026 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company and learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-owner. 3. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, the appellant-claimant has approached this Court thereby seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as has been awarded by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Koraput at Jeypore in MAC Case No.157 of 2014 vide judgment dated 29th September 2016. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Aug-2026 12:36:42 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 5. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, contended that the Tribunal has committed factual as well as legal error in awarding a total amount of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization in favor of the claimant. Being aggrieved by such fixation of compensation amount, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the claim compensation amount. 5. The factual background of the case, in a narrow compass, is that, on 31.07.2014 at about 9:00 A.M while the Petitioner was proceeding to Laxmipur in his motorcycle along with one Bhimsen Patra, on the way near village Podapadii a truck bearing registration number CG-17T-8611 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite direction collided with the motorcycle of the Appellant. As a result of such accident, the Appellant sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was immediately shifted to the PHC, Tikiri and then to the DHH, Rayagada and then to MKCG Medical College, Berhampur for better treatment. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the Appellant-Claimant has sustained 40% permanent disability in his right leg. Such fact of permanent disability is evident from the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board and the same has been marked as Exhibit 12 before the learned Tribunal. It was also contended that the Appellant-Claimant was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, submitted that the fixation of the compensation amount by the Tribunal is Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Aug-2026 12:36:42 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 5. completely erroneous and that the same is not in conformity with the well-established principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many of its announcements. While assailing the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to assess the loss of future earnings due to the permanent disability sustained by the Appellant. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Vibhor Fialok and Another reported in Civil Appeal No.1337-1338 of 2019 disposed of 18th February, 2025. On the basis of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant who has sustained 40% permanent disability which is also on the functional disability taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant is running a grocery shop in his village, the learned Tribunal should have awarded 1/4th of the disability as loss of future earnings. It was also contended that the income of the Appellant has also not been assessed correctly by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant contended that the fixation of the total compensation amount is erroneous and that the same requires reconsideration by this Court in the present appeal. 7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as total compensation taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the Appellant. He further contended that the Claimant-Appellant is running a grocery shop, therefore, he has not Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Aug-2026 12:36:42 Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 5. incurred any functional disability in the sense that the Appellant is not required to perform any physical labour. He further contended that even accepting that the Appellant has sustained 40% permanent disability, he is entitled to 1/4th of such disability towards loss of his future earnings. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also referred to the judgment in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra). 8. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, further on an analysis of the factual background of the present case, and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the matter can be resolved amicably taking into consideration the fact that there is no dispute at bar that the Claimant-Appellant is entitled to loss of future earnings on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovereferred judgment in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra). Accordingly, this Court suggested the counsels appearing for both sides to settle the matter amicably and to suggest the acceptable compensation amount. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimant, at the outset, contended that the Appellant-Claimant would be happy if he shall be paid a consolidated sum of Rupees 3,50,000/- further consolidated amount including interest. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2- Insurance Company left it to the discretion of the Court and submitted before this Court that any amount that would be determined by this Court by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as keeping in view the Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Aug-2026 12:36:42 Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovenoted judgment would be acceptable to the Insurance Company. 11. Considering such submission made by counsels appearing for both sides, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, deems it proper that a consolidated amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded would be just, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsels appearing for both sides accepted the aforesaid determination of compensation made by this Court. Accordingly, the Appeal is being disposed of by directing the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the further consolidated sum of Rs.3,25,000/- before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from today. In the event such amount is deposited within the aforesaid time, the learned Tribunal shall disburse such amount in favour of the claimant in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment dated 29.09.2016. 12. With aforesaid modification/ observations, the Appeal stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil