IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1127 of 2017 Sankarsan Patra …. Appellant Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- Prafulla Kumar Dash & another …. Respondents Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate (Respondent) And MACA No.13 of 2018 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellants Mr. S. Satpathy, Advocate -Versus- Sankarsan Patra & another …. Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 03.02.2026 13. 1. Both the appeals are disposed of by the following common order. 2. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant and Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Page 2 of 4 3. Instant appeals are filed by the claimant and Insurance Company against the impugned judgment in MAC Case No.324/146 of 2001. 4. The alleged occurrence is of the year 1998 and due to the accident, the claimant received injuries, hence, the compensation demanded. The learned court below allowed the claim and directed a compensation of Rs.2,31,195/- payable to him by the Insurance Company with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 28th March, 2001 till the payment within three months of the order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment. 5. The claimant demands higher compensation. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant that there has been 60% permanent disability which has not been taken into account by the learned court below and, hence, compensation should be enhanced. On the other hand, Mr. Satpathy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company altogether denied the liability since there has been no chargesheet filed. In response and reply to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the evidence of the claimant cannot be discarded even if there is no chargesheet filed and in support of such contention, a decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Chamundeswari & others (2021) 18 SCC 596 is placed reliance on by him. Even if for the alleged negligence, there is no chargesheet filed but because of the fact that the claimant deposed before the learned court below and it has been so recorded, in view of the decision (supra), the Court is of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. The question is, however, whether the compensation allowed in favour of the claimant is justified as enhancement is pleaded by him. It is not in denial that the claimant suffered 60% permanent disability. Even if the claimant is not entitled to loss towards future prospects but on account of his injury and sufferings, though, he has been in employment, this Court is of the view that the said aspect should have been taken cognizance of by the learned court below and instead should have awarded compensation higher than the one directed. 7. Considering the decision in Chamundeswari (supra) and the evidence of the claimant before the court below and notwithstanding any such chargesheet not being filed and the fact that the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability on any such ground, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.2,31,195/- should be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- payable with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead from the date of application filed to be deposited within eight weeks from today before the learned Tribunal with the statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company in MACA No.13 of 2018 refunded to it upon showing the receipt of such deposit before the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, it is directed. 9. The appeals are disposed of as a result. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok