D.M.,National Insurance Co.Ltd.,Cuttack Vs Nirupama Nayak

4. While MACA No.182 of 2025 has been filed by the insurer-company challenging the award, MACA No.1040 of 2024 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award vide its Judgment dtd. 25.07.2024 in MAC Case No.1223 of 2018, learned 2^nd

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

ADJ-Cum-3^rd MACT awarded compensation to the tune as Rs.10,09,600/- along with interest @ 7% per annum payable from the date of application till its realization along with penal interest @ 12% per annum of the award amount is not deposited within the stipulated time.

¶16

5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer while assailing the award contended that the compensation awarded towards treatment and hospitalization at Rs.2,40,000/- and compensation awarded to an extent of RS.5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities is on the higher side.

¶17

5.1 It is also contended that the award of interest @7% per annum along with default interest @ 12% per annum is on the higher side taking into the prevailing bank interest rate. It is accordingly that the impugned award needs interference of this Court.

¶18

6. Mr. D. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-Respondent No.1 in support of the enhancement of the award contended that because of the accident in question, the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 60% permanent and her left leg below knee was amputed. It is contended that the factum of amputation is also an admitted fact, being reflected in para 12.1 of the impugned judgment.

¶19

6.1. It is further contended that the injured is a teacher and was drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month at the

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

time of accident. It is contended that taking into account the age of the injured and the salary drawn visà-vis the disability with amputation of the left leg below the knee, the Tribunal committed a wrong in not treating the same as loss of future income at 100%. It is also contended that since the disability is with regard to the amputation of the left leg below knee which is a permanent disability, the Tribunal should have allowed compensation towards future loss of income and compensation towards future attendant charges as the injured requires an attendant for the rest part of her life. But the Tribunal on the face of such disability only awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical treatment.

¶23

6.2. It is contended that taking into account the salary of the injured Rs.35,000/- per month and by taking into account the fact that the injured will not receive any post retirement pension as an appointee after 01.01.2025, by taking the loss of future income at 100%, injured-claimant would have been entitled to get compensation at Rs.29,46,000/- on that account . It is also contended that taking into account the age of the claimant, if a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month is allowed towards future attendant charges, compensation to the tune of Rs.6,60,000/- should have been awarded. It is accordingly contended that had the tribunal awarded just and proper compensation towards future loss of

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

income and future attendant charges, ClaimantRespondent No.1 would have been entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.46,09,600/-. However with regard to award of interest @ 7% per annum and default interest @12% per annum, it is contended that this Court may pass appropriate order.

¶27

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made and taking into account the nature of disability, as reflected in the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal should have assessed the future loss of income at 100%. It is also found from the impugned judgment that no compensation has been awarded towards future attendant charges, even though the disability is permanent in nature and a case of amputation of the left leg below knee.

¶28

7.1. In view of the same, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment is of the view that the end of justice will be sub-served, if compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/-. However, this Court is inclined to allow interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- payable from the date of application till its realization and waive out the penal interest assessed @ 12% per annum.

¶29

7.2. This Court accordingly directs the insurer to deposit compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- along with interest @6% per annum payable from the date of

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

application till its realization. It is observed that on such deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the Claimant-Respondent in terms of the judgment dt.25.07.2024.

¶33

7.3. It is further observed that if the insurer fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated time period, compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- will carry interest @ 7% per annum payable from the expiry of the period of eight (8) weeks till it is deposited.

¶34

7.4. Only after deposit of the amount, Appellant in MACA No.182 of 2025 will be permitted to take refund of the statutory deposit along with accrued interest, if any, on proper identification.

¶35

Accordingly, Both the MACAs are stand disposed of.

¶36

Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case.

¶37

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶38

sangita

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 24-May-2025 13:30:34