Orissa High Court: In the present application, the Insurance Company (appellant) challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs 7.60 lakh granted to a Head Constable (claimant) injured in a motor accident involving a Bullet motorcycle, alleging that the vehicle was planted and the compensation was excessive. Simultaneously, the claimant, referring to medical expenses and disability-related income loss, filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.
A Single Judge Bench of V. Narasingh, J., while disposing of the application and cross-objection, found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings. The Court analysed the claim on the touchstone of just compensation and considering the claimant’s age and loss of amenities of life, reduced the compensation to Rs 7.10 lakh with 7 per cent interest from the date of filing till realisation.
Background:
On 16-01-2014, the injured claimant, serving as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (‘RPF’), was returning to Talcher Railway Station on a motorcycle when a Bullet motorcycle approached from behind in a rash and negligent manner and collided with him. As a result, he sustained injuries and was hospitalised. Subsequently, a claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs 43 Lakh. In response, the owner of the Bullet motorcycle stated that the vehicle was insured and denied liability, while the Insurance Company contested the claim before the Tribunal.
To support his case, the claimant examined himself and an independent witness and submitted 24 documents. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined, but no documents were submitted. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs 7.60 Lakh with 7 per cent interest from 25-03-2015 till payment.
The Insurance Company challenged the award, alleging that the vehicle was planted and pointing to the delay in lodging the FIR. It also contended that the compensation was excessive. However, the claimant stated that he incurred heavy medical expenses and suffered disability, resulting in a downgrade from B-1 to C-1 and a monthly income loss of Rs 7,000, and therefore sought enhancement through a cross-objection.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the evidence on record and found no merit in the claimant’s submission that the Tribunal failed to appreciate his contention regarding loss of income due to reversion from C-1 to D-1 category and his consequential disentitlement. The Court further noted that the delay in lodging the FIR by the Inspector RPF, owing to the claimant’s admission to the hospital and the mention of an unknown vehicle, was not fatal to the claimant’s case. Therefore, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings on the issue.
The Court highlighted the submission of the Insurance Company that the amounts of Rs 5 Lakh for pain and suffering and Rs 2 Lakh for loss of amenities of life were excessive and amounted to a bonanza. However, the Court emphasised that the claimant was admitted in KIIMS Hospital from 17-01-2014 to 06-04-2014 and had sustained a pelvic fracture and urethral injury.
Considering the nature of injuries and the resulting 55 per cent disability, the Court analysed the claim on the touchstone of just compensation and was not persuaded to hold that the award of Rs 5 Lakh towards pain and suffering was unreasonable.
The Court further observed that the award of Rs 2 Lakh towards loss of amenities of life, given the Claimant’s age of 39 years, warranted reduction. The Court held that reducing the amount to Rs 1.50 Lakh would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the Court modified the compensation amount to Rs 7.10 Lakh with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (25-03-2015) till realisation. The Court further directed that the modified amount be paid within eight weeks, failing which it shall carry penal interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.
The Court directed that, within six weeks of producing proof of deposit of the modified amount before the Tribunal, the statutory deposit along with accrued interest shall be refunded to the Insurance Company upon proper application. Consequently, the Court disposed of the application and the cross-objection with no costs.
[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Pattnaik, MACA No.1105 of 2018, decided on 01-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: A. A. Khan
For the Respondents: S.K. Mohanty, Advocate
The post Orissa HC rejects planted vehicle claim; Modifies compensation to Rs 7.10 Lakh for injured RPF Constable appeared first on SCC Times.