Suka Behera Vs Sk.Mastan

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 22^nd February, 2024 in I.A. Nos. 180, 181 and 182 of 2024, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for appellant has filed the consolidated cause title of the appeal memorandum, which is accepted and taken on record.

¶15

Furthermore the deficit court fee is already paid in support which a memo is filed in Court today and the same is also accepted. (R.K.Pattanaik)

¶16

Judge

¶17

I.A. No.376 of 2019

¶18

Instant I.A. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the petitioners (claimants) for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the ground stated therein.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶20

Formal objection is received from Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2(Insurance Company).

¶21

A delay of 367 days is reported as per the SR.

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

Considered the grounds explaining the delay. For the reason assigned, the Court accepting explanation offered by the petitioners (claimants) is in favour of condoning the delay which has occasioned in filing of the appeal. In the other words, the Court concludes that delay of 367 days is required to be condoned in the interest of justice and in order to facilitate disposal of the appeal on merit.

¶24

I.A. stands allowed. Consequently, delay of 367 days in filing of the appeal by the petitioner (claimant) is hereby condoned.

¶25

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

¶27

MACA No.194 of 2019

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶29

Instant appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation directed in Misc. Case No.468 of 2002 by learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack on the grounds stated therein.

¶30

Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the claimant appellant submit that the original claimant suffered a fracture injury and received 45% of permanent disability and by the time of alleged accident, she was 40 years old, whereas, the learned Tribunal did not consider the pain and suffering and loss in her working capacity and awarded a sum of Rs.87,200/- only, which is required to be enhanced.

¶31

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company submits that the compensation is just and reasonable and it has already been disbursed and no case hence is made out for enhancement.

¶32

Page 2 of 3

¶33

Considering the materials on record and submissions of respective parties and since such compensation is directed to be paid by respondent No.2 Insurance Company with the recovery right against the owner, taking cognizance of the fact that the original claimant was 40 years old at the time of accident and she suffered fracture injury and temporarily incapacitated to undertake daily work, the Court considers an additional sum of Rs.10,000/consolidated without interest to be paid the claimants confirming the right of recovery against the owner, namely, respondent No.1.

¶34

Hence, It is ordered.

¶35

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned award passed in Misc. Case No.468 of 2002 by the learned 2^nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid with a direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to payanadditional sum of Rs.10,000/- without interest within eight weeks from today which shall thereafter be disbursedto theappellants. It is made clear that the recovery right is confirmed as against respondent No.1, namely, owner of the offending vehicle.

¶36

Rojina

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 22-Mar-2024 11:10:08

¶39

Page 3 of 3

Suka Behera v. Sk.Mastan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suka Behera v. Sk.Mastan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Jee Vs State of Odisha

Madhusmita Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Bhabagrahi Behera Vs Sub Collector, Bhadrak

Managerclaim,Shrir Vs Sadhu Ch.Mishra

Parsuram Duria Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Shriram G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Pramod Dehri