HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK M.A.C.A. No. 813 of 2010 From an award dated 7.8.2010 passed by Shri B.K. Mohanty, learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 1332 of 1990. -------- Satya Sundar Das … Appellant -Versus- M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. … Respondents For Appellant : M/s. A.K. Sahoo, J.K. Dehuri & S.R. Das. For Respondents : M/s. A. K. Mohanty, M.C. Nayak & D.C. Dey. (For R-1) ---------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of hearing & Judgment : 17 .03.2011 B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. This appeal has been directed against a common order dated 7th August, 2010 passed by learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case Nos. 1332 of 1990, 497 & 498 of 1991. The present appeal relates to Misc. Case No. 1332 of 1990. This is a matter where the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- in favour of the appellant with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment against claim of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell before the Tribunal is that the petitioner was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.ORP-4828 from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack . While the said car stopped due to traffic congestion behind a truck, at that time the offending bus bearing registration No. OSC-5525 came from behind the car being driven in a rush and negligent manner and dashed against the car from behind. As a result of such accident, the occupants of the car including the petitioner sustained injuries on their person. The claimant-appellant spent a lot of money for his treatment. With these averments, the claimant-appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- . 3. The owner of the bus who was opposite party no.1 was set ex parte. The Insurance Company, who was opposite party no.2 before the Tribunal filed written statement wherein most of the averments made in the claim petition have been denied. 4. On the rival contentions of both parties, the tribunal framed as many as four issues. 5. After taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim petition filed by the appellant was maintainable and he was entitled to compensation. As regards compensation, learned Tribunal assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs.5, 000/- besides Rs.1,000/- for pain and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income. Thus the Tribunal determined the total compensation at Rs.8, 000/-. It is further held by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed this appeal with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. 2 6. Mr. Sahoo, leaned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is extremely low considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. It is further submitted that there is no dispute regarding liability of the Insurance Company since as against the finding of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was covered under the valid insurance policy no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. For enhancement of the amount of compensation, Mr. Sahoo relied upon the deposition of p.w.1. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company raised primary objection that there is no specific finding to the effect that the vehicle in question was covered by a valid Insurance Policy and there is also no scrap of paper on record to show that the vehicle was insured. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount. If at all this Court comes to a conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper which needs no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that there is no disability certificate or any certificate in support of the injury sustained by the claimant. As the injury sustained by the claimant is simple in nature, there is no loss of income. 8. The amount involved in the present appeal is very insignificant. The accident occurred in the year 1990. Since then the matter was pending before the Tribunal and thereafter in the High Court in the form of appeal. As regards nature of injury, the finding of the 3 Tribunal is that as per the averment made in the claim petition the claimant has not sustained any external injury, but he sustained severe internal injury in his left knee and was suffering from acute low back- ache. The finding of the tribunal is that in support of such averment no injury report was also filed by the claimant-appellant. Ext.1 is the medical prescription given by a private physician who was not examined by the claimant-appellant. So far as coverage of policy of the offending vehicle is concerned, the observation of the Tribunal is that the offending vehicle was covered by cover note bearing No. A/3 000689 valid till 6.11.1991. Opposite party no.2-Insurance Company has not called for the policy and D.L. particulars of the driver of the offending bus. Ext.A is a document wherein opposite party no.2 sent notice to opposite party no.1 to provide permit particulars of the offending vehicle which has not been furnished by opposite party no.1. Thus considering the documents relied upon by opposite party no.2 learned Tribunal held that opposite party no.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Insurance Company was also permitted to recover the same from opposite party no.1 by due process of law. 9. Admittedly, in the present case the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award/judgment. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has not sustained any external injury and he was not treated in any Government Hospital. The Doctor, who treated the claimant privately has not been examined before the Tribunal. At the same time, it cannot be 4 ignored that the claimant was a financially affluent person otherwise he could not have moved by a car. Considering the facts of the case and going through the impugned judgment this Court feels that Rs.15,000/- would be just and proper compensation which includes compensation towards pain and loss of income. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- before the Tribunal within a period of two months with 7% interest from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. On deposit of the above amount of compensation with interest as directed above, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the appellant on proper identification. 10. Liberty is given to the Insurance Company to proceed separately before the Tribunal to prove that the vehicle was not covered by the Insurance Policy during the relevant time and in case the same is proved, it may recover the compensation award from the owner of the vehicle. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. ……………………... B.N.Mahapatra, J. 5 Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 17th March, 2011/ssd