Proper assessment of compensation must consider actual expenses incurred, loss of amenities, and pain suffered, ensuring no double counting occurs.

JUDGMENT:

G. Satapathy, J.

1. In these two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short, the “Act”), the same judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned 4^th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.107 of 2019 has been assailed.

By the impugned judgment, the learned tribunal has directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. (In short “the insurer”) to pay Rs. 5,46,162/- to one Ashok Kumar Pradhan (In short “the claimant”) together with simple interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f 01.02.2019 till its realization for the injury sustained by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident.

2. Briefly stated, the claimant unfortunately met with a Motor vehicular accident on 04.01.2019 at about 11:15 AM when the Hywa Truck bearing Registration No. OD-02-AM-4544 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) dashed the claimant from backside at Malipada Square, when the latter was going on a walk. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injuries and had undergone treatment at different Hospitals. On this accident, Jankia PS Case No. 05 of 2019 was registered which culminated in charge sheet. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and he suffered not only monetary loss, but also pain and trauma. Accordingly, the claimant approached the learned tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Act for grant of compensation towards injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle resulting in registration of MAC Case No. 107 of 2019 by the learned tribunal.

2.1. In response to the notice of such claim, the owner of offending truck did not appear and he was set ex parte, whereas the insurer of the offending truck not only appeared, but also filed its written statement denying all the allegations made against it and inter-alia disowning its liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimant.

3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the claimant examined four witnesses vide PWs.1 to 4 and proved 16 documents under Ext.1 to 16 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer.

3.1. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount indicated supra to the claimant. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, not only the insurer has preferred one appeal, but also the claimant has preferred another appeal and this is the reason why both these appeals were tagged and heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard, Mr. Durga Charan Dey, learned counsel for the claimant and Mr. Bibekananda Udgata, learned counsel for the insurer in both the appeals and perused the record, but none appears for the Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle despite due service of notice of the appeals.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the only question remains to be adjudicated in both these appeals as to whether the quantum of compensation as awarded to the claimant is just and proper. In answering such issue, this Court considers it proper to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, wherein the learned tribunal has computed the compensation for the claimant. The relevant observation of the learned tribunal reads as under:-

“ xxx xxx .In the instant case, the petitioner (P.W.1) has claimed that after such accident he was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital, Khurda but due to his serious conditio