Divisional Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co..Ltd. Vs Manoj Ku.Panigrahi

2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2014 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur in M.A.C No.11 of 2013/

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

M.A.C No. 393 of 2011 GDC awarding compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

¶16

3. The brief facts of the case of the Claimant is that on 13.10.2010 while he was going to Digapahandi bus stand on his bike, offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-07-V-3617 belonging to Respondent No.2 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. At the time of occurrence, the Claimant was working as an Contractor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As such, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶17

Though the owner of the offending vehicle appeared as Opposite Party No.1 but did not file any written statement and was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the assertions made in the claim petition.

¶18

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

¶19

“1. Whether on 13.10.2010 at about 11.30 A.M. near B.S.N.L. office, Digapahandi, the driver of the offending vehicle Rgn.No.OR 07 V 3617 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

petitioner causing injuries on his leg and thigh.

¶22

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him and from whom and what should be the quantum thereof.”

¶23

In order to substantiate his claim, Claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and documents were exhibited on behalf of the Claimant and marked as Exts.1 to 8.

¶24

No witness was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company whereas documents were marked and exhibited as Exts.A to E.

¶25

Considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal directed for compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

¶26

4. Primarily compensation as awarded, has been assailed, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence which is clear from the charge sheet filed by the Police under Section 181 of the M.V. Act which is on record as Ext.6. It is also stated that the vehicle in question was not having valid permit which was found from Ext.C and there was no material on record to substantiate the medical expenses and sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

permanent deprivation of amputation of great toe of the right leg is very much on the higher side.

¶29

5. The cross-objection has been preferred by the injured Claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/To substantiate such claim, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take note of the amputation of great toe of the right leg which was found from the injury requisition vide Ext.7 and the discharge certificate Ext.8 and the admission of the Claimant injured in MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur for his treatment from 19.10.2010 to 16.11.2010. The grievance is made that though the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board of Berhampur was submitted, the same was not marked as an exhibit. As such, learned Tribunal has committed patent error and thereby compensation amount is liable to be enhanced.

¶30

6. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is seen that learned Tribunal has taken note that though the driver of the offending vehicle has a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle but there is no endorsement enabling him to drive a commercial type of vehicle which is admittedly the offending vehicle.

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

It is apt to note that the Claimant injured examined himself as P.W.1. No rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Taking note of such deposition of the injured, learned Tribunal taking note of loss of income and medical expenses, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was awarded and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded on account of suffering due to amputation of great toe to his right leg.

¶33

7. Hence, on a conspectus of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the approach of the learned Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. 8. So far as cross-objection is concerned, on perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that learned Tribunal has taken into account the original discharge certificate vide Ext.8 which shows that the great toe of the right leg of the Claimant was amputated. Since no medical document was placed on record it did not accept the submission of the Claimant relating to the fracture of the right leg. There is no material on record to substantiate the claim of the Claimant that the learned Tribunal did not take on record the disability certificate which has been annexed to the cross-objection. Even if the same is taken into account which indicates that the percentage of the disability is 54% and is

¶34

Page 5 of 6

¶35

permanent, this Court is of the considered view that the Claimant has not been able to substantiate his claim for enhancement. Hence, this Court finds that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal has to be treated as just and reasonable compensation which does not warrant any interference.

¶36

9. Taking into account the ground regarding nature of driving licnece and lack of permit which is also advanced it shall be open for the Insurance Company to seek recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.

¶37

10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in terms of the impugned award within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

¶38

11. Within six weeks of production of proof regarding deposit of the modified amount before the learned Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest shall be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper application.

¶39

12. The MACA as well as cross-objection are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, CuttackDat ed Date: 23-Aug-2025 11:23:23

¶42

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dat ed the 19^th August, 2025/Pradeep

¶43

Page 6 of 6

Divisional Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co..Ltd. v. Manoj Ku.Panigrahi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co..Ltd. v. Manoj Ku.Panigrahi

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

Dr. Pritam Pal Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Behera @ Alua Vs State of Odisha

Sanuja Kumar Nahaka Vs State of Odisha

Smt.Rama Devi Gupta Vs Universal Road Ways

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Swadhin Meher