Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Binod Bihari Prusty

2. The Appellant–Claimant has preferred this MACA assailing the judgment dated 21.8.2006 passed by the learned 1^st M.A.C.T, Keonjhar in M.A.C Case No.319 of 2001 awarding a compensation of Rs.4,583/- to the Claimant within 45 days, failing which, the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶20

3. The case of the Claimant is that while he was going on 22.3.1999 the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-09-A-6191 came in a high speed and dashed against him as a result of which he sustained injury on his hand and leg and thereafter he was shifted to the SCB Medical College and Hospital for treatment. Hence, the Appellant-Claimant filed the aforesaid M.A.C Case claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In such claim application, the owner of the offending truck was set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company was Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed its written statement opposing the claim.

¶21

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

“1. Is the case maintainable ?

¶24

Whether the truck bearing registration No. OR-09-A-6191 caused accident on 22.3.99 owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver ?

¶25

Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent ?”

¶26

In order to substantiate his stand, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 8.

¶27

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company

¶28

On consideration of the materials on record, learned Tribunal directed for compensation of Rs.4,583/- within 45 days, failing which the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶29

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant that if the impugned judgment is evaluated on the touchstone of “just compensation” it falls short inasmuch as there has been improper quantification relating to the injury suffered. Referring to Ext.2, it is submitted that the Claimant suffered lacerated injury on the left side scalp and left foot. Admittedly the Petitioner was in the hospital from 23.3.1999 to 28.3.1999 and it is evident from Ext.7, the discharge certificate that there was a fracture injury. Hence, he seeks enhancement.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that taking into account the nature of evidence on record, the impugned order does not warrant any interference and any enhancement would amount to “bonanza”.

¶32

7. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate Ext.7 which is on record indicating that there is a fracture injury and also lost sight of the fact that when somebody is undergoing treatment it is not possible for him to meticulously preserve the prescriptions justifying his claim towards medical expenses.

¶33

It is trite that when somebody is hospitalized as an indoor patient there has to be an attendant to look after the welfare of the patient.

¶34

It is also apt to note that in the case at hand no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶35

8. On a conspectus of the materials on record this Court is of the considered view that award of further consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is so directed.

¶36

There is no dispute at the Bar that the amount in terms of the impugned award has already been paid. Thus a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as directed shall be paid to the Claimant within a period

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

9. Court fees shall be payable by the Claimant as per Rules.

¶40

10. Accordingly, the MACA stands disposed of. No

¶41

costs.

¶42

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶43

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 05^th August, 2025/Pradeep

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 18:36:44

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Laxmidhar Sahoo v. Binod Bihari Prusty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmidhar Sahoo v. Binod Bihari Prusty

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

Dharanidhar Bhuyan Vs Union of India and or

Khageswar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Sabitri Jhadia

Sritam Rath Vs State of Odisha

Sasanka Sekhar Bhuyan Vs Dhirendra Kumar Rath