Partly allowed

Sanatan Balia v. Nitya Pr.Pattanaik

Orissa HC27 Sept 2024MACA/865/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal in part, enhancing the motor accident compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 35,000. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit an additional Rs. 20,000 to the appellant without interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 35,000; Respondent II to deposit additional Rs. 20,000 without interest to the Tribunal.

Sanatan Balia Vs Nitya Pr.Pattanaik — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

M.A.C.A. No.865 of 2009

¶3

Sanatan Balia

¶4

Appellant(s) Represented by Mr.B.P.Mohanty,Advocate.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Nitya Prasad Pattanaik and another

¶7

…. Respondent(s) Represented by Mr.S.K.Mohanty,Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

ORDER

Order No.

27.09.2024

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶13

This appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 preferred by the appellant (claimant before the learned Tribunal) for enhancement of the awarded compensation amount from Rs.15,000/(rupees fifteen thousand) to Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) on the ground of inadequacy of the same has already been heard from the learned counsels of both the sides for its final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶14

As per the submissions of learned counsels of both the sides, the appellant (claimant before the learned Tribunal) had sustained fracture injuries in his right hand in a motor vehicular accident, for which, he had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) as his just compensation stating that, he had not been able to perform his carpentry work for about six months for his such fracture in his right hand.

¶15

Taking the aforesaid fracture injuries of the appellant (claimant) in his right hand as well as his temporary loss of income

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

from his carpentry works due to the fracture in his right hand for some months from earning his livelihood for himself as well as for his family, the Court suggested the appellant (claimant) to receive a tentative lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) more in addition to the awarded amount of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) with interest by the learned Tribunal (which has already been received by him) without any further interest on the aforesaid additional amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) as the just compensation of his motor vehicular accidental injuries, to which, learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) agreed, but the learned counsel for the Insurance Company left the same upon the Court to dispose of the appeal finally passing necessary orders towards the enhancement of the compensation amount as it deems fit and proper.

¶19

So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the nature of injuries and temporary loss of income of the appellant (claimant) into account, it is held that, if the consolidated amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) without any interest thereon as an additional compensation amount in addition to the awarded compensation amount shall be paid to the appellant (claimant) by the Insurance Company as his just compensation for his above injuries, then the same shall cause prejudice to no party.

¶20

Therefore, on the basis of the factors as discussed above, the appeal preferred by the appellant (claimant) is to be allowed in part on merit.

¶21

In result, the appeal preferred by the appellant (claimant) is allowed in part on merit.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

The awarded compensation amount in favour of the appellant (claimant) by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.15,000/(rupees fifteen thousand) to Rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty-five thousand).

¶25

As the appellant (claimant) has already received the awarded compensation amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) with interest thereon passed by the learned Tribunal, for which, the appellant (claimant) is entitled to get the lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) without any interest thereon from the respondent No.2 as an enhanced (additional) compensation amount. 8. The respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit the said amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) before the learned Tribunal within five weeks hence for disbursement of the same to the appellant (claimant).

¶26

Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this order to the learned Tribunal for payment of the above additional amount to the appellant (claimant) in reference to M.A.C. Case No.75/492 of 2003/2002.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of finally.

¶28

Utkalika

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2024 17:54:05

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sanatan Balia v. Nitya Pr.Pattanaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Balia v. Nitya Pr.Pattanaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iswar Behera Vs Madan Behera

Sandhyarani Benerjee Vs Binodini Panigrahi

Sarbeswar Vs Ghani

Premananda Mohanty Vs Nityananda Mohanty

Kamal Lochan Pradhan Vs State

Burundi Harijan Vs Pankajini Mohanty