Manasmita Pradhan Vs Sanjukta Routray

On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2013 it appears that the Respondent No.1, who was Opposite Party No.1 in the MAC Case did not contest the case, as is evident from Para-3 of the said judgment. Perused the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgment.

¶23

The Appellant who happens to be the claimant in MACT Case No.470 of 2010 has approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereby challenging the judgment and award dated 02.02.2013 passed in MACT No.470 of 2010 by the learned First M.A.C.T., Puri.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of late Sita Dei, initially approached the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.12,40,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Forty Thousand) for their loss of dependency and damages caused to them on account of death of the deceased in a road accident, which took place on 23.10.2010 near their village. The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence, learned counsel by the Parties on a careful analysis of the background and by a speaking judgment, allowed the claim application of the Appellant- claimant and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Twenty Thousand) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the case, i.e. 28.12.2010, till realization of such amount.

¶25

Page 2 of 4.

¶26

The Appellant, being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation that has been determined by the Tribunal, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant took various grounds to demonstrate that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly low and that the Appellants are entitled to more compensation on the basis of the earnings of the deceased.

¶27

Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, on the basis of instruction received vide e-mail dated 29.06.2026, submitted before this Court that he has been instructed by the Insurance Company that the matter has been amicably settled and that a further consolidated sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has been agreed upon by the claimant and the insurance company.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has no objection to such offer made by the Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid development and keeping in view the spirit of the Lok Adalat, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the appeal by modifying the compensation amount to a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in addition to the awarded amount.

¶29

With the aforesaid modification to the judgment and award dated 02.02.2013, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶30

The additional enhanced compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- be deposited within a period of eight (8) weeks before the Tribunal and, on an application being made by the claimant, the same shall be disbursed by the Tribunal in favour of

¶31

Page 3 of 4.

¶32

Sisir

¶33

the claimant. It is further directed that the statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be released in their favour along with accrued interest within the aforesaid time on an application filed by the company, however the same shall be only subject to Insurance Company depositing the enhanced awarded amount before the learned Tribunal.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 31-Jul-2026 17:54:12

¶37

Page 4 of 4.

Manasmita Pradhan v. Sanjukta Routray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manasmita Pradhan v. Sanjukta Routray

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

Narendra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Bishnu Charan Sahoo Vs Integrated Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar

M/S.Tata Aig G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Ful Kumari Devi

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Surekha Khosla

D.I.G. Bsf,Koraput Vs Mala Dangri