In an appeal against an award for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of earning to Rs. 80,000.
An additional Rs. 80,000 awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of earning, to be paid with interest from the date of the judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
MACA No.745 of 2016
From the award dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T, Cuttack in MAC No.57 of 2012.
----------Deepak Ranjan Tripathy …. Appellant Versus Shakir Ali & another …. Respondents For Appellant … Mr. D.C. Dey, Adv. For Respondent No.2 … Mr.G.P. Dutta, Adv.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing : 04.01.2019 : Date of judgment : 04.01.2019
Dr. A.K.Rath, J Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in MAC No.57 of 2012, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. For the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V Act before the learned 3rd M.A.C.T., Cuttack for compensation. The case of the claimant was that on 9.1.2012 at about 8 P.M while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration number OR02-AY-8974 with his uncle on the left side of the road, a bus bearing registration number UP-34-T-0531 came in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle as a result of which, he sustained injuries.
2
The matter was reported to the police; whereafter Lingaraj P.S. Case No.4 of 2012 was registered.
3. Though notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle, but he did not contest the case and as such, he was set ex parte. Opposite party no.2-the insurer of the vehicle entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the petition.
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck four issues. To substantiate the case, the claimant had examined three witnesses and thirteen documents had been exhibited. Learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration number UP-34-T0531, the petitioner sustained injuries. Placing reliance on the injury report, vide Ext.8, it came to hold that the claimant had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg, fracture of right clavicle along with other wounds. He was admitted in the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 9.1.2012. Thereafter, on the same day he was taken to Vivekananda Hospital. The injury certificate issued by the treating physician had been accepted. The treating doctor had been examined as a witness. On taking a holistic view of the matter, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- towards purchase of medicines, Rs.40,000/- towards operation and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of attendant, pain and suffering, transportation etc. Held so, it awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
5. Heard Mr.D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
6. Criticising the award, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest illegality in awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of
3
attendant, pain and suffering, transportation etc. Learned Tribunal did not award the loss of amenity and loss of income. He further submits that the treating physician had been examined as a witness. The injured had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg, fracture of right clavicle along with other wounds. After operation, he was unable to move for three months. Thus the award is to be enhanced.
7. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. The claimant has not suffered any disability. Learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-.
8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and avocation, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.15,000/-. In addition to the same, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenity and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.80,000/- (rupees eighty thousand). The insurer is directed to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the judgment.
9. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
DR. A.K.RATH, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated 4th January, 2019/PKS.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was adequate considering the injuries sustained by the appellant.
Whether an additional amount should be awarded for pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of earning.
Deepak Ranjan Tripathy
Shakir Ali
A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
