Dismissed

Prabhas Ch.Agrawal v. Sanatan Patel

Orissa HC10 Apr 2023MACA/333/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The appellant argued for an enhancement of compensation for future income and medical expenses. The court rejected this based on a Medical Board report finding 41% disability and no necessity for future orthopedic intervention, applying Supreme Court principles on compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; compensation amount remains at the Tribunal's award of Rs.5,00,000/-; Medical Board report kept on record.

Prabhas Ch.Agrawal Vs Sanatan Patel — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MACA No.333 of 2011

¶3

Prabhas Chandra Agrawal

¶4

…. Appellant Mr. K. Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sanatan Patel and another …. Respondents Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. K. Das, A.S.C.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

Order No.

10.04.2023

Heard Mr. K. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellantclaimant and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶14

Present appeal by the Appellant-claimant is directed against the judgment dated 18.03.2011 of learned 2^nd MACT, N.D., Sambalpur in M.A.C. Case No.217 of 1999 (S.B.P.), wherein the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @6% from three years preceding the date of judgment to the claimant on account of injury sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident dated 23.6.1998.

¶15

The injured-claimant has come up praying for enhancement of the compensation amount mainly contending that learned

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Tribunal has failed to compute any amount towards loss of future income due to the disability sustained by him and future medical expenses.

¶18

As a matter of fact, no such disability certificate was produced on record before learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the injured in this regard saying that he has failed to prove any such disability on this part. However, learned Tribunal has granted Rs.3,00,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of income, Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and another Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities of life.

¶19

This Court considering the submission advanced by the injured, has directed him by order dated 16.11.2015 to appear before the Medical Board to be constituted by the Superintendent of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack with further direction that said Medical Board shall examine the injured on 8.12.2015 with regard to the extent of his disability and the necessity of future medical treatment. Accordingly, the claimant appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board examined him thoroughly. The copy of the report of the Medical Board dated 8.12.2015 is produced before this Court by Mr. K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perusal of the same reveals that the Medical Board is of the opinion that the disability of the injured-claimant is around 41% and there is no necessity of orthopedic intervention at present.

¶20

Since the entire contention of the claimant was on his physical disablement and necessity of future medical expenses,

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

the same is found unsustainable as per the opinion of the Medical Board dated 8.12.2015 which speaks that there is no necessity of orthopedic intervention at present. So, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award to enhance the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal has well discussed all the aspects of loss and determined the amount of compensation. The amount so computed is found as per the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . Accordingly this Court declines to interfere with the impugned award.

¶23

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Copy of the report of the Medical Board as produced by Mr. K. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel is kept on record.

¶25

( B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶26

B.K. Barik

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Prabhas Ch.Agrawal v. Sanatan Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhas Ch.Agrawal v. Sanatan Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Mahavir Pvc Cables Factory, Cuttack Vs M/S. Indo Mahaveer Kable, Dhenkanal

D.M.,M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kesab Pradhan

Union of India Vs Banamali Khuntia

Bharat Majhi Vs Nalinikanta Mishra

O.I.Co.Ltd Vs Babaji Charan Sahu

Hrusikesh Sahoo Vs Union of India (Ncb)