MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 (In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). MACA No.395 of 2023 Ashok Kumar Pradhan … Appellant Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate -versus- M/s. Manakshya Stone Pvt. Ltd. and another … Respondents Mr. B. Udgata, Advocate(R-2) MACA No.689 of 2023 The Senior Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack … Appellant Mr. B. Udgata, Advocate -versus- Ashok Pradhan and another … Respondents Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate(R-1) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:20.03.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. In these two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short, the “Act”), the same judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 (in short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.107 of 2019 has been assailed. By the impugned judgment, the learned tribunal has directed the National Insurance Company Ltd.(In short “the insurer”) to pay Rs. 5,46,162/- to one Ashok Kumar Pradhan (In short “the claimant”) together with simple interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f 01.02.2019 till its realization for the injury sustained by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident. 2. Briefly stated, the claimant unfortunately met with a Motor vehicular accident on 04.01.2019 at about 11:15AM when the Hywa Truck bearing Registration No. OD-02-AM-4544(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed the claimant from backside at Malipada Square, when the latter was going on a walk. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injuries and had undergone treatment at different Hospitals. On this accident, Jankia PS Case No. 05 of 2019 was registered which culminated in charge sheet. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 Page 3 of 9 driver of the offending vehicle and he suffered not only monetary loss, but also pain and trauma. Accordingly, the claimant approached the learned tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Act for grant of compensation towards injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle resulting in registration of MAC Case No. 107 of 2019 by the learned tribunal. 2.1. In response to the notice of such claim, the owner of offending truck did not appear and he was set ex parte, whereas the insurer of the offending truck not only appeared, but also filed its written statement denying all the allegations made against it and inter-alia disowning its liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. 3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the claimant examined four witnesses vide PWs.1 to 4 and MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 proved 16 documents under Ext.1 to 16 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer. 3.1. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount indicated supra to the claimant. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, not only the insurer has preferred one appeal, but also the claimant has preferred another appeal and this is the reason why both these appeals were tagged and heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard, Mr. Durga Charan Dey, learned counsel for the claimant and Mr. Bibekananda Udgata, learned counsel for the insurer in both the appeals and perused the record, but none appears for the Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle despite due service of notice of the appeals. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the only question remains to be adjudicated in both these appeals as to whether the quantum of compensation as awarded to MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 Page 5 of 9 the claimant is just and proper. In answering such issue, this Court considers it proper to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, wherein the learned tribunal has computed the compensation for the claimant. The relevant observation of the learned tribunal reads as under:- “ xxx xxx .In the instant case, the petitioner (P.W.1) has claimed that after such accident he was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital, Khurda but due to his serious condition he was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment and due to non- availability of bed in Capital Hospital he was treated in Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar as an indoor patient. In spite of prolonged treatment from 04.01.2019 to 24.01.2019 at Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar he could not be recovered properly and became a physically disabled person. But no disability certificate in that regard has been proved to establish his claim. In the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed that he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 7,00,000.00 towards his treatment. In support of his claim the petitioner has also proved his medical treatment documents along with the medical bills of Sum Hospital and AMRl Hospital, Bhubaneswar amounting of Rs. 3,66,504.00 marked as Ext. 12 (88 sheets). P.W.4, the Marketing Executive in Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar has proved treatment papers, along with bills of Rs.49,658.00 vide Ext. 16. Ext.9 the discharge summary of Sum Hospital reveals that the injured got admitted on 04.01.2019 and discharged on 24.01.2019 for sustaining MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 abrasion present over lateral aspect of right pelvis and abrasion present over lateral aspect of left foot over distal end of fibula. From the above evidence, it is clear that though the petitioner had claimed Rs.7,00,000.00 towards expenditure for his medical treatment but he was only able to prove the medical bills vide Ext. 12 and Ext.16forRs.3,66,504.00and Rs.49,658.00 respectively. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that the injured-petitioner is entitled to get total Rs.4,16,162.00 in total towards his medical expenditure incurred due to the alleged accident.” 6. A careful perusal of the aforesaid observation of the learned tribunal, it appears to the Court that the learned tribunal has taken into consideration Ext. 12 & Ext. 16 to arrive at a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 4,16,162/- under pecuniary head for the injury sustained by him, but it is found from the record that Ext. 12 contains Ext. 16 and thereby, the amount as found in Ext.16 has been calculated twice which needs to be deducted. It is not in dispute that the learned tribunal has computed Rs. 49, 658/- by relying upon Ext. 16 which amount needs to be deducted from the compensation amount calculated for the claimant. MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 Page 7 of 9 Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,66,504/- under pecuniary head. 7. It also appears that it is a plain case of injury, but not a case of disability and thereby, following the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar vrs. Ajay Kumar; (2011) 1 SCC 343, the computation of compensation has to be considered by taking into account (i)the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and (iii) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). In this case as discussed earlier, the expenses relating to treatment,hospitalization,medicines and miscellaneous expenditure have already been awarded, but the learned tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet and conveyance, whereas it has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, however, the tribunal should have granted more on special diets, rather than granting a MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 hefty sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings inasmuch as the injury report of the claimant reveals him to have suffered injury of fracture of lower limb. According to this Court, since the claimant had remained as indoor patient for 21 days, he may be awarded at least for a sum of Rs. 84,000/- under the head of special diet and attendant charges @ Rs. 4000/- per day, but he should not have granted more than Rs. 20,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings in this case. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- towards pain sufferings, special diet and attendant charges in addition to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges. In the result, the total compensation amount to the claimant is hereby calculated at 3,66,000/- + 1,04,000/- + 10,000/- = Rs. 4,80,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f the date of filing of claim i.e. 01.02.2019 till the realization of the amount. 8. In the result, the appeal by the Claimant stands dismissed, whereas the appeal by the Insurer MACA Nos.395 & 689 of 2023 Page 9 of 9 stands allowed in part on contest, but ex-parte against the Owner-Respondent. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above and the Insurer is hereby directed to pay to the Claimant a compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 01.02.2019 till its realization within eight weeks hence. On deposit of the aforesaid compensation amount before the learned tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant proportionately in terms of the impugned judgment and on proof of such deposit, the statutory deposit amount together with accrued interest thereon be refunded back to the Insurer. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th day of March, 2026/Priyajit