IMPORTANT POINT
The court restored the Tribunal's compensation award, finding the High Court's reduction of the appellant's income and compensation unjustified.

ORDER

1. The appellant herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagatsinghpur for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.12.2008. On account of the injuries sustained, he incurred 40% permanent disability. The appellant-claimant was aged 42 years at the time of the accident. After appreciating the evidence on record and finding the appellant entitled to be compensated the Tribunal passed an award in MAC Case No.116/2009 on 14.01.2020 granting a compensation of Rs.8,70,386/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-Six only) payable with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition viz., from 14.08.2009.

2. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimantappellant filed MACA No.251/2021 before the High Court of Orissa. At the same time, challenging the award of compensation the insurance company, which is the first respondent herein, also filed an appeal, being MACA No.692/2020. As per the common judgment dated 01.08.2022, the appeals were disposed of. The High Court modified the award passed by the Tribunal by reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 8,70,386/- to Rs.6,54,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty-Four Thousand only) besides reducing the rate of interest from 7% to 6%. The appellant preferred the captioned appeal on being aggrieved by the reduction of the quantum of compensation as also the rate of interest besides the rejection of his prayer for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. At the outset, we make it clear that upon hearing the counsel on both sides and perusing the materials on record we are not inclined to consider the prayer of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. In fact, we think that the appellant has made out a case only for consideration of the question regarding the sustainability or otherwise of the reduction of compensation, by the High Court. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal had passed the award, accepting Ext. P7 disability certificate, certifying the permanent disability of the appellant-claimant as 40%. Though, the appellant claimed his monthly income as Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only) claiming himself to be the owner of a stationery-cum-betel shop, in the absence of any evidence to establish his claim as businessman and also with respect to his monthly income the Tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.8,400/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Four Hundred only) treating him as a laborer at the time of accident. The Tribunal, after considering all the aspects of the matter and the relevant data and details, assessed the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs.8,70,386/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-Six only), with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The impugned common judgment passed by the High Court would reveal that the award passed by the Tribunal was interfered with and the quantum of compensation was reduced mainly on re-assessment of the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. Evidently, the High Court took it as Rs.6,000/- per month again, on guess-work. Obviously, taking into account the aforementioned extent of permanent disability viz., 40% the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 6,77,386/- towards loss of dependency. At the same time, reckoning the same extent of permanent disability but, after modifying monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 6000/- and adding 25% thereof towards future prospects the High Court awarded an amount of Rs. 5,04,000/- as compensation for loss of future earnings. That apart, the High Court modified the medical expenses and allied expenses as Rs. 1,00,000/- as against the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,32,990/- granted by the Tribunal. So also, the High Court interfered with the amount of Rs. 60,000/- granted by the Trib