Allowed

Ramswaroop Agarwal v. Perminder Singh

Orissa HC14 Feb 2023MACA/968/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an appeal against a motor accident compensation order. Recognizing inadequate compensation for the appellant's injuries, the court directed the insurer to deposit an additional Rs. 2,50,000 for the claimant to cover medical and amenity losses.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the insurer to deposit a further consolidated sum of Rs. 2,50,000 before the tribunal within two months for disbursement to the claimant.

Ramswaroop Agarwal Vs Perminder Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.968 of 2005

¶2

Ramswaroop Agarwal

¶3

…. Appellant

¶4

Ms. S. Sahoo on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Perminder Singh and Another …. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Amitav Das, counsel for Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM: SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

14.2.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard Ms. S. Sahoo on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for claimant – Appellant and Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for insurer – Respondent No.2.

¶15

Present appeal by the claimant is directed against impugned judgment dated 3^rd September, 2005 of learned 2^nd MACT, Northern Division, Sambalpur passed in Misc. (A) Case No.120 of 2002 (S), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum form the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 15^th April, 2002 has been granted on account of injuries sustained by the injured – claimant in the motor vehicular accident dated 17^th February, 2002.

¶16

It is seen that the injured – Appellant sustained communicated fracture of L-1 leading to spinal surgery with fixation of plates and he suffered with neuro deficiency in urinary bladder. He underwent treatment as indoor patient for a period of around 40 days in different spells in different hospitals. He further suffered with permanent

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

disability to the extent of 60%. The disability certificate and discharge certificates have been marked under Ext.5, Ext.6 and Ext.7. It is seen from the impugned award that only Rs.20,000/- has been granted towards loss of income though it is the case of the claimant that he was a businessman at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundergarh having cloth business. Further, no amount has been granted for future medical expenses or loss of amenities of life. The injured – Appellant was aged about 46 years on the date of accident. Keeping in view all these factors and the date of accident, i.e. 17^th February 2002, in the opinion of this court, a further consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- would suffice the purpose. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for the claimant agrees to the same and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the insurer leaves it to the discretion of the court. Accordingly the amount is fixed to the said extent.

¶19

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurer – Respondent No.2 to deposit before the tribunal a further consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (two lakhs fifty thousand) within a period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant – Appellant on such terms and proportion to be fixed by the learned tribunal.

¶20

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

¶21

( B.P. Routray)

¶22

Judge

¶23

M.K.Panda

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Ramswaroop Agarwal v. Perminder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroop Agarwal v. Perminder Singh

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

M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Mamata Pradhan

Manja Munda Vs Ravi Sondhi

Mamata Pradhan Vs Rajendra Pr.Maheswari

Basanti Jena Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Sushila Das Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty

Jayanti Jena Vs Bulu Ku.Mohanty