G. Satapathy, J.

1. Instant two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the “Act”) assail the judgment dated 06.11.2023 passed in MAC Case No.172 of 2017 by which the learned Add. District Judge-cum-III Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhenkanal (in short, “the Tribunal”) directed the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short, “the insurer”) to pay Rs.3,39,970/- together with simple interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 26.07.2017 till its realization to one Rohit Kumar Sahoo (in short, “the claimant”) towards injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident in an application U/S.166 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, on 07.04.2017 at about 6.00 PM the claimant while coming on his motorcycle OD-06-A-5681(hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) from Hindol Road to Upper Baghalunda as a pillion rider suffered an accident, when the motorcycle fell into a ditch and he sustained injuries all over the body. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle and for the injuries, he was treated at various hospitals incurring huge expenditure and he became disabled due to the accident and thereby, unable to support his family out of his avocation of contractor work. The claimant accordingly, approached the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for his injuries by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle. The claim of the claimant was registered vide MAC Case No.172 of 2017.

2.1. In response to the notice of the aforesaid claim, the owner of the offending motorcycle appeared and filed his written statement stating inter-alia that he is the owner of the motorcycle, which is duly insured with the insurer and he was having valid DL at the time of accident. On the other hand, the insurer appeared and filed its written statement denying its liability for violation of policy condition by inter-alia claiming the compensation as sought for to be excessive. It is the further claim of the insurer that the claim by the claimant is collusive one and the rider of the offending motorcycle was never rash and negligent.

3. On the interse pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed as many as four issues and proceeded to examine the witnesses tendered by the parties. In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited 13 documents under Ext.1 to 13, besides examining two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, whereas the insurer examined only one witness as OPW-1 and exhibited the letter of CDMO, Dhenkanal under Ext.A and one RTI information under Ext.B.

4. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment granting the compensation to the claimant indicated (supra) with penal interest 9%, if the compensation is not satisfied within the time stipulated by it, but being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, both the insurer and the claimant have preferred two separate appeals which are disposed of by this judgment.

5. Heard, Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant and Ms. Rimjhim Bala Pati, learned counsel for the insurer and perused the record, but none appears for the Respondent-cum-owner at the time of hearing of these appeals despite having entered appearance through one counsel.

6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, the only issue that arises for consideration in these two appeals is whether the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced or reduced?. Before delving upon the core issue of quantum of compensation, this Court considers it proper to negate the claim/plea of the insurer that since there is a delay of 13days in lodging the FIR, the judgment passed by the learned tribunal needs to be set aside inasmuch as no law prohibits of lodging of FIR with delay. It is quite obvious in a situation like this, when a person suffered an ac