IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.34 of 2023

Itishree Rout and Others

….

Petitioners

Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate

-versus-

Sarat Chandra Swain and Another

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Mahali, counsel for Opposite Party No.2

CORAM:

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

25.4.2023

Order No.

04.

1.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the claimant –

Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for insurer – Opposite

Party No.2.

3.

Initially, this court by order dated 30^th March, 2022 disposed of

the appeal in MACA No.255 of 2019 confirming the award and

compensation amount granted by the tribunal. Challenging same the

claimant – Appellant approached Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP

(Civil) No.35435 of 2022. The Supreme Court by order dated 20^th

January, 2023 disposed of the appeal granting liberty to the claimant –

Petitioners to approach the High Court in a review petition. The

relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court dated 20^th January,

2023 is reproduced below:-

“xxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

From the perusal of the impugned judgment and

order, we find force in the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the Petitioners.

Page 2 of 4

We feel that no useful purpose would be served by

keeping this petition pending before this court. The interest

of justice would stand served if the petitioners are permitted

to file a review petition before the High Court seeking

consideration of their claim with respect to incidental

charges and expenses incurred in that regard during the

period from the date of accident till he expired.

Accordingly, we dispose of this special leave

petition giving liberty to petitioners to approach the High

Court with a review petition in this regard and with a

request to the high Court to consider and decide the same in

accordance with law expeditiously.

xxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx”

4.

As seen from the above order, the scope of review is in respect

of the incidental charges and expenses incurred during the period from

the date of accident till the date of death of the deceased. The accident

took place on 16^th January, 2014 and the deceased, namely Ranjan

Rout died on 31^st May, 2017. He died in his residence.

5.

This court called for the original LCR for perusal. As seen from

the documents produced on record, separate medicine bills were

produced by the injured in course of his examination as P.W.1.

According to the evidence of P.W.1, he was treated as indoor patient

from 16^th January, 2014 to 22^nd February, 2014 at Aswini Hospital,

Cuttack and from 8^th August, 2014 to 13^th August, 2014 at Regional

Spinal Injury Centre of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.

The injured produced the discharge certificates issued by Aswini

Page 3 of 4

Hospital and SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, three out-

patient slips, pathology reports of Aswini Hospital, CT Scan report,

MRI report and ECG report and bunch of medicine bills. He did not

say about any specific amount in his evidence towards ancillary

charges or expenses incurred by him after he was discharged from the

hospital. The tribunal has considered all such amounts mentioned in

the medicine bills produced by the injured to determine the medical

expenses at Rs.8,30,000/-.

6.

In course of hearing in the present review petition, no such

document could also be produced by the claimants to reveal any

further expenses incurred by the injured towards ancillary charges and

expenses. However in absence of any document produced in respect

of such expenses, keeping in view the probable cost of attendant

charges, special diet, transportation cost etc incurred by the injured

during his period of treatment as an indoor patient and otherwise, a

further consolidated sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in the opinion of this court,

would serve the purpose. The amount is determined keeping in view