Rabindra Digal Vs Ashiwini Ku.Kodamans

Instant appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment dated 22^nd August, 2014 passed in connection with MAC Case No.16/41 of 2013-2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-3^rd M.A.C.T., Phulbani to the extent and with regard to the compensation awarded on the grounds stated.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal fell into error while considering the wages as was amended in 2010 and fixed at Rs.8,000/- but instead applied Rs.4,000/- in the case of the respondents and calculated the compensation accordingly. It is submitted that the accident took place on 3^rd November, 2012

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

and by that time, the amendment had already come into force and it was for the learned Tribunal to consider the monthly wage @ Rs.8000/- instead of Rs.4000/- and to that extent, the impugned decision is erroneous. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the compensation does not include the payment on the head of ‘General Damages’.

¶20

Recorded the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.2. It is not denied by respondent No.2 that the wage limit was amended in 2010 and pegged at Rs.8000/per month.

¶21

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and as the wage limit was enhanced to Rs.8000/- per month, this Court reaches at the conclusion that the learned Tribunal committed a factual error in applying the same and hence, is to be corrected. The compensation as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal stands at Rs.4,22,340/with interest @ 6% shall be paid from the date of application i.e. 16^th November, 2012. But, in view of the error committed by the learned Tribunal in applying the wage limit enhanced on and from 2010 @ Rs.8000/- per month, the compensation for the reason stated above shall have to be reworked and accordingly assessed at Rs.6,50,000/- payable with interest.

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

In the result, the appeal stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment in MAC Case No.16/41 of 2013-2012 dated 22^nd August, 2014 of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-3^rd M.A.C.T., Phulbani is hereby modified

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Alok

¶26

with a direction to respondent No.2 to make payment of Rs.6,50,000/- including on the head of the ‘General Damages’ to the appellants with interest thereon @ 6% per annum as early as possible at least within a period of eight weeks payable from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, it is further directed that the amount shall be released in favour of the appellants without delay in consonance with the award in MAC Case No.16/41 of 2013-2012.

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶28

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Apr-2026 19:36:22

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Rabindra Digal v. Ashiwini Ku.Kodamans

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Digal v. Ashiwini Ku.Kodamans

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

Anjan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Subha Das @ Subrat Das Vs State of Odisha

Ramachandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sk. Anwar Ali Vs Sagar Mohanty, Engineer in Chief Water Resources, Bhubaneswar

Priyabrata Garanayak Vs Sagar Mohanty, Engineer in Chief Resources ,Bhubaneswar

Bandhu Charan Majhi Vs Panchanan Nayak, Tahasildar, Pattamundai, Kendrapara