The assessment of compensation in motor accident claims must consider actual medical expenses and ensure just compensation, reflecting the claimant's losses and suffering.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) being the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned 3^rd MACT, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.190 of 2017 in this appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”).

By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 28.03.2017 till realization to the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the injured-Naba Kishore Mohanty, who died during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned trial Court and substituted by them.

2. Briefly stated, the present appeal arises out of an accident that took place on 13.04.2016 at about 2 PM, when the injured was proceeding on Khuntuni Ghantikhal road, on the way, one Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-N-0615 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending Motorcycle”) dashed him from behind by the rider who was riding the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injury to the injured with fracture of left limb and the injured was accordingly shifted to different hospitals for his treatment and he had incurred expenditure for his treatment. The accident was in fact registered vide Khuntuni PS Case No.50 of 2016, which resulted in submission of charge-sheet, but later on the injured approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation for injuries sustained by him in the Motor vehicular accident by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending Motorcycle.

2.1. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC Case No.190 of 2017), the owner of the offending Motorcycle did not chose to contest the claim of the injured and he was, accordingly, set ex parte, whereas the insurer contested the claim of the injured by filing written statement denying its liability by inter-alia averring not being liable to indemnify the owner of the offending motorcycle for the rider having no valid DL.

3. On the inter-se pleading between the parties, the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The injured-claimant, however, unfortunately died naturally during the pendency of the claim proceeding and was substituted by his legal representatives, who had led evidence by examining three witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3 and proving 16 documents under Exts.1 to 16 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted compensation to the claimants for the amount indicated supra. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard, Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Ananga Kumar Otta, learned counsel appearing virtually for R- 1(a) to (e), but none appears for the Respondent-owner despite due notice of the appeal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties upon perusal of record, it primarily appears to the Court that the quantum of compensation is mainly challenged by the insurer, since the accident occurring due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending Motorcycle which could not be validly disputed by the insurer and, thereby, this Court has no other option left, but to concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending Motorcycle and, thereby, the claim is squarely maintainable. Once the claim by the claimants is found maintainable, t