MACA No.1199 of 2023 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1199 of 2023 (In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack … Appellant -versus- Sabitri Mohanty and others … Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A.K. Otta, Advocate (for R-1(a) to (e) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.03.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) being the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.190 of 2017 in this appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”). By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has directed the insurer to pay a sum of MACA No.1199 of 2023 p. 2 Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 28.03.2017 till realization to the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the injured-Naba Kishore Mohanty, who died during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned trial Court and substituted by them. 2. Briefly stated, the present appeal arises out of an accident that took place on 13.04.2016 at about 2 PM, when the injured was proceeding on Khuntuni Ghantikhal road, on the way, one Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-N-0615 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending Motorcycle”) dashed him from behind by the rider who was riding the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injury to the injured with fracture of left limb and the injured was accordingly shifted to different hospitals for his treatment and he had incurred expenditure for his treatment. The accident was in fact registered vide Khuntuni PS Case No.50 of 2016, which resulted in submission of charge-sheet, but later on the injured approached the learned Tribunal in an application p. 3 U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation for injuries sustained by him in the Motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending Motorcycle. 2.1. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC Case No.190 of 2017), the owner of the offending Motorcycle did not chose to contest the claim of the injured and he was, accordingly, set ex parte, whereas the insurer contested the claim of the injured by filing written statement denying its liability by inter-alia averring not being liable to indemnify the owner of the offending motorcycle for the rider having no valid DL. 3. On the inter-se pleading between the parties, the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The injured-claimant, however, unfortunately died naturally during the pendency of the claim proceeding and was substituted by his legal representatives, who had led evidence by examining three witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3 and proving 16 documents under Exts.1 to 16 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer. After appreciating MACA No.1199 of 2023 p. 4 the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted compensation to the claimants for the amount indicated supra. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this appeal on various grounds. 4. Heard, Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Ananga Kumar Otta, learned counsel appearing virtually for R- 1(a) to (e), but none appears for the Respondent- owner despite due notice of the appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties upon perusal of record, it primarily appears to the Court that the quantum of compensation is mainly challenged by the insurer, since the accident occurring due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending Motorcycle which could not be validly disputed by the insurer and, thereby, this Court has no other option left, but to concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending p. 5 Motorcycle and, thereby, the claim is squarely maintainable. Once the claim by the claimants is found maintainable, the next question comes for determination is assessment of compensation, which must be just compensation inasmuch as grant of compensation in a Motor vehicular accident is a beneficial legislation and no strict procedure of law is required to be adopted to compute the compensation to the claimants. In this case, the learned Tribunal while determining the compensation for the claimants under issue No.(iii) has held in paragraph-8.5 of the impugned judgment as under:- “8.5. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the medical documents, medical expenditure bills filed on behalf of the injured- petitioner and period of treatment, in the humble view of this Tribunal, a consolidated sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakh) be awarded in favour of the petitioners on different heads i.e. medical expenses, attendant cost, pain and sufferings, transportation and nutritious food towards compensation due to injuries sustained by Naba Kishore Mohanty which is the just compensation in this case.” 6. It, therefore, appears that the learned Tribunal has not quantified the compensation by discussing MACA No.1199 of 2023 p. 6 anything as to how the claimants are entitled to such amount of compensation, which is evident from the finding that a consolidated sum of Rs.6,00,000/- be awarded in favour of the claimants, but on perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the injured was admitted in Ashwini Hospital w.e.f. 16.04.2016 to 26.05.2016 and in addition, the injured was also admitted in the said hospital on 27.06.2016 and discharged on 04.07.2016 as per the discharge certificates proved for the claimants under Exts.14/1 and 15/1. It is, therefore, quite clear that the injured was admitted in the hospital for 57 days, but looking at the expenditure in a private hospital like in this case, it would be quite possible that the injured must have spent at least Rs.7,000/- per day during the relevant time of accident and, accordingly, the medical expenditure of the claimant is quantified at Rs.7,000/- X 57 = Rs.3,99,000/- In addition, the evidence on record clearly suggests that the injured has spent around Rs.51,886/- towards his treatment by producing medicine bills. Hence, the claimant might have spent p. 7 total of around Rs.3,99,000/- + Rs.51,886/- = Rs.4,50,886/-. Besides, the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma. Finally, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,50,886/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application on 28.03.2017. It is found from the record that learned Tribunal has awarded penal interest on the compensation amount, which is not admissible since Section 171 of the Act provides for imposition of interest on the award only and nowhere the Acts provides for imposition of penal interest on the award. Further, no other issue was raised by the appellant to dispute the award and, accordingly, the claimants- respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application on 28.03.2017 till actual realization. 7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part on contest against the claimant-respondent Nos.1(a) to MACA No.1199 of 2023 p. 8 (e), but ex parte against the owner-R2. Consequently, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above and the insurer is hereby, directed to pay the modified compensation amount of Rs.4,65,886/- together with the simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application on 28.03.2017 till realization by depositing the same before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks hence. On such deposit of modified compensation amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award and the appellant-insurer be refunded back with the statutory deposit together with the accrued interest thereon. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th day of March, 2026/Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer