Court emphasized the necessity to accurately assess compensation by considering actual expenses and fair income potential of the injured claimant.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. The appellant being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation has approached this Court in an appeal U/S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act No.32 of 2019 (in short “the Act”) challenging the impugned award passed on 04.02.2025 by the learned 3^rd MACT, Bhubaneswar in MAC Case No.3678 of 2017.

2. Facts not in dispute are that the appellant on 29.11.2013 at about 5.30 PM met with an accident being dashed by the rider of Hero-Honda Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OR-02-AV-9982 and consequently, he sustained injury and shifted to the hospital, but later he was referred to SCBMCH, Cuttack for further treatment. On the incident of the accident, an FIR was lodged with registration of Khandagiri PS Case No.639 of 2013, but subsequently, the appellant being the petitioner has approached the learned Tribunal for compensation on the account of injuries sustained by him in the accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending Hero-Honda Motorcycle.

2.1. In response to the notice of claim of the appellant-claimant, the owner of offending Motorcycle did not appear and was set ex parte, but the insurer of the Motorcycle contested the claim, however, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties passed the award directing the Respondent-insurer to pay compensation of Rs.7,44,800/- along with 6% interest w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the insurer has already satisfied the award.

3. Heard, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the R2. Notice against R1-cum-owner stands dispensed with since liability of payment of compensation by R2 is not disputed.

4. The rival submissions made it very clear that the quantum of compensation has been disputed on two accounts, one is income of the injured appellant and another is for non-consideration of the medical expenditure incurred by the appellant- claimant. At the outset, the minimum wage that has been taken by the learned Tribunal to assess the compensation was Rs.4,000/- per month, but as per the prevailing wage rates at the time of accident, it should have been Rs.4,500/-, which was never disputed by R2. Further, the appellant-claimant in the course of evidence has produced medicine bill worth Rs.1,98,317/- towards his medical expenditure, but in the impugned judgment, there is no discussion made as to why the medical expenses has not been given to the appellant. Further, the medical expenses incurred by the appellant has not been challenged by R2 in the cross-examination and there was no reference made by it with regard to appellant incurring medical expenses, however, the accident and injury to the person of the claimant is not disputed and, thereby, the incurrence of expenditure cannot be disputed, but the thing which is required to be assessed is that what should be the appropriate medical expenditure of the appellant. However, on going through the depositions of the witnesses together with the evidence on record and pleadings of the claimant, it appears that the claimant-appellant was admitted to SCBMCH, Cuttack on 29.11.2013 and discharged on 10.12.2013 and, thereafter, he was again admitted to the hospital on 22.01.2014 and discharged on 26.01.2014. It, therefore, very clear that the claimant was an indoor patient for around 15 days and that apart the accident took place in Bhubaneswar and, therefore, the claimant-appellant must have been provided preliminary treatment at Bhubaneswar and he must have incurred expenses towards his transportation to SCBMCH, Cuttack. Looking at the evidence on record and takin