Hira Barik Vs Subrat Kumar Nayak

This is an appeal U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2024 for enhancement and for not clarifying the interest payable to the claimant-appellant.

¶15

By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal directed Respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,65,699/- to the legal heir of the deceased injuredclaimant, who is the appellant before this Court w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application i.e. from 20.08.2008 till its realization except the period during which the claimant caused delay in the proceeding.

¶16

Initially, one Sankar Barik had filed an application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation towards the injuries sustained by himself in a Motor vehicular accident which occurred on 05.06.2008 at about 10AM when he was hit by a Maruti

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

800 Car bearing Registration No.OAU-8800 while moving on a cycle at Delta Chhak, Bhubaneswar, but unfortunately, the original claimant-cum-injured Sankar Barik died on 25.11.2012 and was substituted in the claim application by his mother who is appellant before this Court and who pursued the claim. On conclusion of hearing of the claim application, the learned tribunal, however, after appreciating the evidence tendered by the parties upon hearing them passed the impugned judgment granting a sum of Rs.1,65,699/- towards Bill produced for the treatment of the injured in addition to grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss and thereby, granting a total compensation of Rs.2,65,699/- together with the interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f date of filing of claim till realization except the period during which the claimant caused delay in the proceeding with further stipulation to pay the aforesaid compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, with penal interest @ 8 % per annum till actual realization. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant albeit is before this Court for enhancement and for clarification of interest payable to the claimant-appellant, but the learned counsel for the appellant has confined the challenge of the impugned judgment limited for clarification of the period of

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

interest payable, which according to him has not been clarified by the learned Tribunal.

¶21

5.1. In the course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Bishnu Brata Singh, learned counsel for the appellant emphatically submits that the Respondent has only paid a sum of Rs.3,188/- towards interest in this case, but the learned Tribunal has not clarified as to how the delay that has been caused by the appellant should be excluded for calculating the interest.

¶22

5.2. Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, learned counsel for R2, however, submits that the period during which the appellant has sought for adjournment should be excluded for payment of interest.

¶23

After having considered the rival submissions and on going through the impugned judgment, since the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has directed R2 to pay the interest w.e.f. 20.08.2008 till its realization, except the period during which the claimant caused delay in the proceeding, this Court does not find any error apparent in the said observation, however, clarifies it as to how to exclude the interest for the period the claimant-appellant has caused delay by observing that the claimant-appellant should not be paid with the interest for the period during which he had taken adjournments. The insurance company shall, accordingly, re-compute the interest amount and pay the differential amount, if any, to the claimantappellant. In case, the appellant considers that she has

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

not been paid with the required interest in terms of the impugned judgment, she would be at liberty to file execution proceeding before the learned Tribunal by indicating the period for which she is entitled to the interest, but such calculation should be inconformity with the impugned judgment. The penal interest @ 8 % w.e.f one month after receipt of copy of the impugned judgment by R-2 as awarded by the learned Tribunal being not inconformity with law and an otiose, the same needs not to be carried out.

¶26

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed on contest, but the impugned judgment stands clarified to the extent indicated above. Further, the insurance company is, hereby, directed to re-compute the interest payable to the claimant and pay the differential amount, if any within eight weeks hence.

¶27

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶28

Subhasmita

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-May-2026 11:27:16

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Hira Barik v. Subrat Kumar Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hira Barik v. Subrat Kumar Nayak

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

Rudra Madhab Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu Vs State of Odisha

Bharati Prusty Vs Alok Kumar Das

Siba Sarbhang Vs State of Odisha

Jay Krushna Barik Vs State of Odisha