The court determined that the insurance company is liable for compensation due to reckless driving by the offending vehicle, and recalibrated the amount based on findings of total disability and necessary life assistance.

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short, the “Act”); one by the insurance company in MACA No. 543 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “insurer”) and the other by the injured-claimant in MACA No. 238 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”), are directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned 3^rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.91 of 2017. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount of Rs.41, 27,376/- to the claimant together with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 19.06.2017 till actual realization.

2. The short facts as found from the record are that on 30.12.2016 at about 12 Noon, when the claimant was going on his scooty from Baramunda side towards Khandagiri, on the left side of the road, at that time, suddenly one Truck bearing Regd. No.OD- 02-W-4179 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) came in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty of the claimant causing serious injury to him and he was, accordingly, shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, but subsequently, to Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar, however, according to the claimant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and he became 100% disabled and he was an employee of M/s. Sagar Metal Forming, Sati Jjayamati Road, Athgaon, Guwahati, Assam with salary @ Rs.17,500/- per month, but due to accident, he is unable to perform his normal duty and lost his avocation. Accordingly, the claimant approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs.76,00,000/- by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

2.1. In response to the notice of claim, the owner of offending vehicle did not appear and was set ex parte, but the insurer appeared and filed its written statement denying its liability by pleading inter-alia that the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent, but the accident occurred due to fault of the claimant, who by riding his Activa scooty in a wrong direction dashed against the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Accordingly, the insurer with aforesaid pleadings prayed to dismiss the claim of the claimant.

3. On the rival pleadings of the claimant and insurer, the learned Tribunal framed two issues with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the claimant examined two witnesses vide PWs.1 and 2 and proved 15 documents under Ext.1 to 15 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer.

4. After hearing the parties upon analysis of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation as indicated above to the claimant. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, both the parties i.e. the claimant and the insurer have filed separate appeals, but basically the quantum of compensation is under challenge in both the appeals, no matter the insurer additionally challenges the legality of the impugned judgment in its appeal.

5. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant and perused the record.

6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record together wi