Partly allowed

Dillip Ku.Lenka v. Gurudayal Singh Nagi

Orissa HC9 Nov 2022MACA/119/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a lower court order awarding Rs.6,500 was allowed. The High Court fixed a further consolidated compensation of Rs.30,000 to the appellent for grievous injuries, directing the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the insurer to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs.30,000 for the amount to be disbursed in favour of the appellant.

Dillip Ku.Lenka Vs Gurudayal Singh Nagi — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.119 of 2006

¶2

…. Dillip Kumar Lenka

¶3

Appellant

¶4

Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Gurudayal Singh and Another …. Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.K. Mahali, counsel for Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

9.11.2022

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.2.

¶15

Present appeal by the claimant is against the impugned judgment dated 6^th October, 2005 of the learned 1sy MACT, Keonjhar passed in MAC Case No.233 of 1994, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.6500/- has been paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident dated 7^th March, 1994.

¶16

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that in the meantime the claimant has already received the amount granted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. As per him, such amount granted is too less as the same does not account for the medical expenses and other heads to be granted in respect of grievous injury.

¶17

The impugned judgment reveals that the claimant was hospitalized for 15 days due to sustenance of grievous injury. Thus, considering the nature of injury, period of hospitalization and the date of accident, a further consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- is proposed to the parties. This is agreed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant - claimant and Mr. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer leaves it to the discretion of the court. Accordingly, the compensation amount is fixed to the said extent.

¶18

In the result the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer – Respondent No.2 to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand) before the tribunal within a period of two months from today, where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Appellant.

¶19

The power filed by Mr. Mahali is kept on record.

¶20

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶21

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶22

M.K.Panda

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Dillip Ku.Lenka v. Gurudayal Singh Nagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Ku.Lenka v. Gurudayal Singh Nagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandramani Rout Vs State of Odisha

Rabi N.Ram Vs Parbati Lahiri

Divisional Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sk.Razak

Banoj Kumar Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Pradhani Jani Vs State of Odisha

Sadhu Soreng Vs State of Odisha