IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.994 of 2019 Arjuna Behera …. Appellant Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Prahallad Sahu & Another …. Respondents Mr. P.K. Tripathy, (for Respondent No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 13.03.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant and Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Company. 3. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the learned 2nd A.D.J-cum-4th MACT, Puri vide judgment dt.07.12.2019 in M.A.C. Case No.166-585 of 2003-2001. 4. It is contended that the aforesaid claim case was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation because of the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident caused on 30.05.2001. 4.1. It is contended that similarly situated injured persons suffering injury in the self-same road accident though were awarded with compensation, but the present appellant since could not produce the record showing his treatment in the medical because of such accident on 30.05.2001, the Tribunal disbelieved the stand of the appellant and accordingly rejected the claim vide the impugned judgment. 5. In support of the admission of the appellant for medical treatment on 30.05.2001, i.e. the date of accident, learned counsel appearing for the appellant produced the certified copy of the document in Court. (The same be kept on record). 5.1. It is contended that since for the latches of the engaged counsel, the document in support of the medical treatment of the appellant could not be produced and accordingly the claim application was rejected, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter be remitted back for fresh adjudication. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-No.2- company supported the impugned judgment and contended that since no documents could be produced by the appellant showing that he get injured because of the road accident on 30.05.2001 and was under medical treatment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is however contended that if this Court will be inclined to remit the matter then the respondent-company may not be saddled with interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the claim application to till date. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made and placing reliance on the documents produced in Court, since it is found that the appellant was admitted in the medical because of the injury sustained on 30.05.2001 and the claim application has been dismissed on the ground that no document was filed showing any medical treatment of the appellant, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dt.07.12.2019. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to re-decide the same. 7.1 Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to produce the document so produced in Court in support of the injury and medical treatment and lead further evidence to exhibit the documents in question. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 7.2. However, in the event, the appellant is held entitled to get any compensation, then he will not be entitled to get any interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the claim application till the date of this order. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita