G. Satapathy, J.

1. These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the “Act”), assail the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2025 passed in MAC Case No.697 of 2016 by which the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, “the Tribunal”) directed M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (in short, “the insurer”) to pay a sum of Rs.20,70,271/- only to one Akshaya Kumar Sahoo (in short, “the claimant”) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident.

The aforesaid award carries further simple interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of application i.e. 20.10.2016 till its realization and the insurer was directed to pay the compensation within two months of passing of the aforesaid award, failing which to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Briefly stated, the claimant was working as a helper in the Truck bearing Regd. No. OD-07-A-8393(hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) and on 09.04.2016 at about 12.30PM, the offending Truck met with an accident by dashing another Truck from behind, as a result the claimant sustained multiple compound fractures on his left leg femur, left lower limb, fracture of left ankle joint and grievous wounds on left leg, severe head injury and facial injuries together with multiple injuries all over his body. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Truck and he was treated at different hospitals at Berhampur and Bhubaneswar for the injuries sustained by him and despite treatment, he became permanent disabled and lost his total earning capacity and the accident was reported to Rambha Police, resulting in registration of Rambha PS Case No. 44 of 2016 which culminated in submission of charge sheet. On the aforesaid averments, the claimant approached the Tribunal U/S. 166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs.33,50,000/- by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

2.1 In response to the claim, the owner of the offending Truck appeared and filed his written statement admitting the accident, but questioning its maintainability against him. The owner of the offending Truck also admitted the salary of the claimant @ Rs.12,000/- per month and inter alia further pleaded that since the vehicle was duly insured with all vehicular documents, the insurer is contractually liable to indemnify him against the award passed in this claim.

2.2. On the other hand, the insurer appeared and contested the claim by filing its written statement denying its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and inter alia averring the claim to be not maintainable by praying to dismiss the claim.

3. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal struck with five issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and proved police paper, discharge certificate, his disability certificate and other medical documents under Exts. 1 to 10 together with identifying five X-ray plates under MO-I to MO-V as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer, but the owner of the offending vehicle examined himself as OPW1. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted compensation to the claimant indicated supra. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the claimant and insurer have filed two separate appeals challenging the quantum of compensation.

4. Heard, Mr.Anupam Dash, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr.Karunakar Das, learned counsel for the claimant. Besides, Mr.Khitish Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle had concluded his argument on 06.02.2026, but he was not present when the matter was heard finally on 12.05.2026. In addition, the insurer and claimant have filed their short written notes of submissions in support of their claim.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record,