IMPORTANT POINT
Just Compensation – Amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for Tribunal and High Court to award more than what is claimed – Rough calculation made by claimant is not a bar or upper limit.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The claimant, in a motor vehicle accident having suffered injuries, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. He is aggrieved by the order¹[Dated 24.08.2022 in MACA No.256 of 2019] passed by the High Court²[High Court of Orissa at Cuttack].

3. The facts as available on record are that on 16.01.2014 four persons occupying Verito Vibe Car bearing Registration No.OD-05-D- 9596 were travelling from Sambalpur, Odisha to Cuttack. At about 01:30 pm, the offending Bus bearing Registration No.OD-14-A-1774 being driven at high speed struck against the said car on NH-55 near CPP Chawk, NALCO, Anugul, Odisha, as a result of which the occupants of the car suffered serious injuries. One of the occupants, Ranjan Rout, succumbed to the injuries on 31.05.2017. A police case bearing P.S. Case No.7/2014 was registered against the driver of the offending bus under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC³[Indian Penal Code]. Three injured occupants of the car and the legal heirs of the deceased, Ranjan Rout filed different claim petitions, which were assigned to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack. The present appellant had filed petition⁴[MAC Case No.176 of 2014] claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. As all the claims had arisen from the same accident the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions and decided the same by a common Award⁵[Dated 15.01.2019].

4. A perusal of the said Award passed by the Tribunal shows that registered owner of the offending bus did not appear despite service, hence, was proceeded against ex parte. The Insurance Company⁶[National Insurance Company Limited] contested the claim petitions. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the claim applications are maintainable?

(ii) Whether due to rash and/or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OD-14-A-1774 the accident took place and in that accident deceased namely Ranjan Rout succumbed to injuries and other petitioners namely Dipti Ranjan Pattanayak, Santosh Baral, and Chandramani Nanda sustained injuries on their persons?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation and if so, what would be the extent?

(iv) Whether both the Opposite Parties or either of them are/is liable to pay the compensation? and

(v) To what other relief/s, if any, the respective petitioners are entitled?”

5. The Issue No.(ii) was decided in favour of the claimants. As far as entitlement of compensation is concerned, the claim of the present appellant was discussed under para ‘13’ of the Award of the Tribunal. The evidence led to the effect that he sustained head injury, which was grievous in nature. The claimant was initially admitted in Angul Government Hospital and due to his serious condition, he was shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and remained admitted there from 16.01.2014 to 11.02.2014. During that period, he had undergone a major brain surgery. The mother of the appellant in her statement stated that due to the accident, her son (appellant) had become mentally unsound. He is not able to understand anything and is bedridden since then.

5.1 The appellant visited Ashwini Hospital for his follow up after surgery on 17.06.2014, 15.09.2014 and 25.07.2015. It was claimed that the mother of the appellant spent about Rs.15,00,000/- on his treatment, which is still going on. However, total bills produced towards medical expenses were to the tune of Rs.3,31,153/-. The aforesaid amount was awarded by the Tribunal. The Record Keeper of the Ashwini Hospital was also summoned in evidence who proved the medical record of the appellant, which mentioned that he had sustained grievous head injury fracture of C6 and T4 vertebra. He also produced the medical bills.

6. As far as the employment of the appellant is concerned, it was claimed that at the relevant point of time he was working as Branch Manager