MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

MACA No.329 of 2024

Rohit Kumar Sahoo … Appellant

Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

Nihar Ranjan Sahoo and

another

… Respondents

Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate (R-2)

MACA No.726 of 2024

The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar

… Appellant

Ms. R.B. Pati, Advocate

-versus-

Rohit Kumar Sahoo and another … Respondents

Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate(R-1)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING : 12.05.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15.05.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Instant two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the “Act”) assail the

judgment dated 06.11.2023 passed in MAC Case No.172

of 2017 by which the learned Add. District Judge-cum-

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 2 of 16

III Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhenkanal (in short,

“the Tribunal”) directed the Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short, “the insurer”) to pay

Rs.3,39,970/- together with simple interest @ 7% per

annum with effect from 26.07.2017 till its realization to

one Rohit Kumar Sahoo (in short , “the claimant”)

towards injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicular

Accident in an application U/S.166 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, on 07.04.2017 at about 6.00

PM the claimant while coming on his motorcycle OD-06-

A-5681(hereinafter referred to as “offending

motorcycle”) from Hindol Road to Upper Baghalunda as

a pillion rider suffered an accident, when the motorcycle

fell into a ditch and he sustained injuries all over the

body. According to the claimant, the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the

offending motorcycle and for the injuries, he was treated

at various hospitals incurring huge expenditure and he

became disabled due to the accident and thereby,

unable to support his family out of his avocation of

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 3 of 16

contractor work. The claimant accordingly, approached

the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for his injuries by impleading the owner

and insurer of the offending motorcycle. The claim of the

claimant was registered vide MAC Case No.172 of 2017.

2.1. In response to the notice of the aforesaid

claim, the owner of the offending motorcycle appeared

and filed his written statement stating inter-alia that he

is the owner of the motorcycle, which is duly insured

with the insurer and he was having valid DL at the time

of accident. On the other hand, the insurer appeared

and filed its written statement denying its liability for

violation of policy condition by inter-alia claiming the

compensation as sought for to be excessive. It is the

further claim of the insurer that the claim by the

claimant is collusive one and the rider of the offending

motorcycle was never rash and negligent.

3. On the interse pleadings of the parties, the

learned tribunal framed as many as four issues and

proceeded to examine the witnesses tendered by the

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 4 of 16

parties. In support of his case, the claimant examined

himself as PW.1 and exhibited 13 documents under

Ext.1 to 13, besides examining two more witnesses as

PWs.2 and 3, whereas the insurer examined only one

witness as OPW-1 and exhibited the letter of CDMO,

Dhenkanal under Ext.A and one RTI information under

Ext.B.

4. After appreciating the evidence on

record upon hearing the parties, the learned tribunal

passed the impugned judgment granting the

compensation to the claimant indicated (supra) with

penal interest 9%, if the compensation is not satisfied

within the time stipulated by it, but being aggrieved with

the quantum of compensation, both the insurer and the

claimant have preferred two separate appeals which are

disposed of by this judgment.

5. Heard, Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned

counsel for the claimant and Ms. Rimjhim Bala Pati,

learned counsel for the insurer and perused the record,

but none appears for the Respondent-cum-owner at the

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 5 of 16

time of hearing of these appeals despite having entered

appearance through one counsel.

6. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, the only issue that

arises for consideration in these two appeals is whether

the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced or

reduced?. Before delving upon the core issue of

quantum of compensation, this Court considers it proper

to negate the claim/plea of the insurer that since there

is a delay of 13days in lodging the FIR, the judgment

passed by the learned tribunal needs to be set aside

inasmuch as no law prohibits of lodging of FIR with

delay. It is quite obvious in a situation like this, when a

person suffered an accident as a pillion rider due to rash

and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, he

may not approach the police immediately as he must be

under the trauma of the accident and might be treated

at hospital. Besides, in a situation like this, the family

members of the injured must be busy in the treatment

and often, therefore, delay may arise in lodging the FIR.

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 6 of 16

Additionally, the accident cannot be disbelieved mere

delay in lodging the FIR, when an independent agency

like police while being moved has submitted charge-

sheet which is evident from Ext.2. There is also no

serious challenge to the finding of the learned trial

tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle

and this Court, therefore, concurs the finding of the

learned tribunal with regard to accident occurring due to

rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending

motorcycle.

7. Reverting to the core issue of the

quantum of compensation, it is claimed by the claimant

that he has sustained injuries and disability due to the

accident, but the injury report of the claimant proved

under Ext.3 discloses him to have suffered fracture of

Right Tibia Condyle and right wrist, however, there is a

serious issue of claimant producing two disability

certificate which were exhibited under Ext.7 & 13 with

objection by the insurer. What is most important and

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 7 of 16

surprising is that after the insurer claimed that the

disability certificate exhibited under Ext.7 is fake one,

the claimant produced another disability certificate under

Ext.13. Although the claimant advanced a plea that the

disability certificate issued under Ext.7 being not

uploaded in the website, the claimant cannot be held

responsible, since he had obtained it from the medical

board, but such argument appears to be an eye wash

inasmuch as the disability certificate issued under Ext.7

shows it to be a case of locomotor disability and the

diagnosis is Paraplegia, but Paraplegia is a condition of

partial or complete Paralysis of the lower half of the

body including both the legs and it usually caused by

small spinal cord injury or disease in the Thoracic or

Lumbar region and it causes loss of movement,

sensation and bowel/bladder control from the waist

down and the patient often require a wheel chair. On the

other hand, the second disability certificate produced by

the claimant exhibited under Ext.13 discloses it to be a

case of locomotor disability and the diagnosis is OA(R)

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 8 of 16

KNEE WITH STIFFNESS and he has been described as

50% permanent disabled in relation to his right leg &

right arm. It is, therefore, very clear that the claimant

has not approached the learned tribunal in clean hands

and in order to get a hefty compensation, he has

produced Ext.7 which appears to be a non-existent

document in view of the letter of the CDMO, Dhenkanal

exhibited under Ext.A by the insurer.

8. Additionally, the learned tribunal on

analysis of the evidence and materials placed on record

considered Ext.7 to be a fake document, but this Court

is quite convinced to find the claimant to have practised

fraud upon the learned tribunal, since one document

shows 60% disability with Paraplegia of the claimant,

whereas the other document shows 50% disability of

locomotor of right leg and right Arm. Be that as it may,

the claimant has been proved to have suffered injuries

of fracture of Right Tibia Condyle and right wrist and the

second disability certificate produced by the claimant

shows about the permanent disability of some part of his

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 9 of 16

body, but it is to be remembered here that all disability

would not result loss of income inasmuch as the

disability of a particular part of the body may not be the

disability of the whole of the body of a person. It is to be

assessed from the evidence on record as to how the

disability of a particular part of the body affects the

working of the whole body in reference to the avocation

of the person and that is why the concept of the

functional disability has been conceived in computing the

compensation to the person sustaining injury/injuries in

an accident. Disability always refers to physical

impediment and inability of a person to perform physical

function normally, but permanent disability refers to loss

of use of some part of the body. The extent of disability

of limb or a part of the body expressed in terms of the

percentage obviously cannot assume to be the same

extent of disability of the whole body and where the

claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of

injury, the assessment of compensation to an injured

under the head of loss of future earning would depend

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 10 of 16

upon the affect and impact of such permanent disability

on his earning capacity. It is, therefore, very clear that

the disability of a part of body may not be the disability

of the whole part of the body and the disability of the

whole of the body may not be the same extent of

functional disability and the extent of functional disability

would not be the same extent of loss of earning.

9. In the present case, even if the

disability of the claimant as referred in Ext.13 is taken

into consideration vis-à-vis his avocation of contractor

with his advance age at 54years and there being no

evidence tendered by the claimant to establish as to how

the claimant could not perform his work with regard to

his avocation, this Court is not convinced that the

disability as referred in Ext.13 would be the same extent

of disability for the claimant for loss of future earnings.

In this situation, this Court considers it proper to refer to

the decision in Aliveli Mallareddy Vrs.Surthani

Linganna@Chinna Linganna& Others in Civil Appeal

No---of2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.19636 of 2024)

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 11 of 16

disposed of on 07.04.2025, wherein the Apex Court in

para 10 has held thus:-

“10. Xx xx xx. xx the Almanco Manual would suggest

that the disability when not assessed to the whole

body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and

upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed”.

Similarly in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport

Corporation Vrs. Vibhor Fialok & Another in Civil

Appeal No(s).1337-1338 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP(C)

Nos.2738-2739 of 2019], the Apex Court in Paragraph

13 has held as under: -

“13. Xx xx xx. Thus, this court will have to undertake

the exercise of assessing the whole body disability

and as per almanco manual, the whole body disability

when compared to the particular limb disability would

be 1/4

th

in respect of that of the lower limb. xx xx xx

xx”.

10. In the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and taking into account the manner in

which the claimant has tried to mislead the learned

Tribunal by producing Ext.7 to grab hefty compensation

and taking into account the injuries sustained by the

claimant keeping in view the disability of the claimant as

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 12 of 16

referred in Ext.13 by the medical board, together with

the precedent of the Apex Court as indicated above, this

Court has no hesitation to conclude that the learned

tribunal has rightly taken the functional disability and

loss of future earning of the claimant at 10% which does

not require any interference. In order to establish the

monthly income of the claimant, it is stated in the

evidence that the claimant was working as a supervisor

in a Stone crusher under one Parameswar Rao and was

earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but PW.2 examined for

the claimant admitted in cross-examination that he has

not seen any salary document of the claimant and he

only heard that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month as his salary, however, the employer being

examined as PW.3 has stated in his evidence that after

the accident the claimant has become permanent

disabled and unable to do his job, but the disability

certificate as produced by the claimant under Ext.13, if

read with the injuries sustained by the claimant under

Ext.3, it can be said with certitude that the claimant

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 13 of 16

must not have lost his job for the injuries sustained by

him. PW.3 has no doubt established the salary of the

claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month, but he has admitted

that he has not issued any document with regard to

appointment letter in favour of the claimant nor has he

filed the attendance register, Wage Register, Salary

Register before the tribunal. In such circumstances, the

learned tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of

the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. Another aspect of challenge of the

claimant in these appeals that the claimant had in fact

spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards his treatment, but the

learned tribunal has given a paltry amount of

Rs.1,07,970/- without any reason. This Court, however,

is not convinced with such submission of the claimant,

since the tribunal has taken into consideration the

documents produced by the appellant towards his

treatment and accordingly, granted a sum of

Rs.1,07,970/-, however, the certified copy of same

documents are produced before this Court, but on

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 14 of 16

adding the medical bills of the claimant, it comes around

Rs.1,27,576/- and, therefore, the error in adding of the

medicine bills by the tribunal needs to be

modified/corrected. No further issues are in fact raised

in these two appeals to challenge the quantum of

compensation. Hence, the claimant is entitled to the

following amounts towards compensation for sustaining

injuries in motor vehicular accident.

Heads Amount(Rs.)

Rs.1,32,000/- (loss of future earnings of the

petitioner @ 10% functional disability);

Rs.1,20,000/-(Yearly income of the petitioner)&10%

thereof comes to Rs.12,000/-(yearly loss

of income) x 11 (multiplier since the age of the

petitioner was 54 years) = Rs. 1,32,000/-

loss of future earnings.

Rs.1,32,000/-

Actual expenditures incurred towards the Hospital

charges, medicines charges and operation charges

as per (Ext.10 series)

Rs.1,27,576/-

Conveyance charges i.e. transportation charges

in different occasions for moving to the hospitals

Rs.5,000/-

Attendant charges in different times during

hospitalization.

Rs.20,000/-

Expenses for Special diet & nutrition. Rs.20,000/-

For mental and physical shock, pain and suffering

already suffered or likely to be suffered in future till

the end of his life for the aforesaid fractured injuries.

Rs.50,000/-

Loss of expectation of life Rs.10,000/-

Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-

Cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-

Total Rs.3,89,576/-

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 15 of 16

In addition the appellant is also entitled to

simple interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. from the filing of

the claim, but he is not entitled to any penal interest

thereon, if the same is not paid within statutory period

as ordered by the learned tribunal. Accordingly, the

modified compensation amount for the claimant is

calculated at Rs.3,89,576/- together with simple interest

@ 7 % per annum w.e.f 26.07.2017 till its realization.

12. In the result, the appeal by the insurer

stands dismissed, whereas the appeal by the claimant

stands allowed in part on contest against the insurer,

but ex-parte against the Owner of the offending motor

cycle. ERGO, the impugned judgment is modified to the

extent indicated above and the insurer is directed to pay

Rs. Rs.3,89,576/- together with simple interest @ 7%

per annum w.e.f 26.07.2017 till its realization within

eight weeks hence to the claimant. On deposit of the

aforesaid compensation amount before the learned

tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant

proportionately in terms of the impugned judgment and

MACA Nos.329 & 726 of 2024

Page 16 of 16

the statutory deposit together with accrued interest

thereon in MACA No.726 of 2024 be refunded back to

the Insurer on the production of proof of deposit of

modified compensation amount before the learned

tribunal.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 15

th

day of May, 2026/Jayakrushna