Subasini Nahak vs Prafulla Kumar Choudhury & Anr.

G. Satapathy, J.

The claimant-appellant being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation as granted to her by the learned 2^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SD), Berhampur (in short “the Tribunal”) vide judgment dated 11.09.2008 passed in MAC Case No. 705/99(746/98) has preferred this appeal in an application U/S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”).

By the impugned judgment, the claimant-appellant was granted a sum of Rs.22, 000/- together with simple interest @7% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of claim application on 28.08.1998 till actual realization as compensation towards the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident, but it is stated at the Bar that the award has already been satisfied by R-2-cum- the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Berhampur (in short “the insurer”). The impugned judgment also grants the right of recovery to the insurer for satisfying the award first and then, recovering the same from R-1-cum-owner of the offending vehicle in a separate proceeding.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Biranchi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, however, submits that the appellant only challenges the quantum of compensation for not being awarded with any amount towards loss of income during treatment and the amount granted under the conventional head of “pain and suffering” is too less for the claimant, but Mr. Rath, however, concedes that the matter can be settled by way of discussion and deliberation by awarding some further amount to the claimant-appellant.

This Court of course has heard Mr. Biranchi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and Mr. Somanath Roy, learned counsel for R-2, but the notice against R-1-Prafulla Kumar Choudhury, the owner of the offending vehicle stands dispensed with in view of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 14(4) of the CPC, since R-1 had not contested the claim of the claimant before the learned Tribunal.

The facts being largely undisputed are not reiterated to avoid prolixity, but after having considered the rival submission and on a comprehensive & consensus-seeking exercise with the learned counsel appearing for the parties keeping in view the challenge of the claimant-appellant as to the quantum of compensation, this Court proposes a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards enhancement of compensation to the claimant-appellant as full and final settlement in this case and seeks the response of the parties, to which Mr. Biranchi Narayan Rath, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant by filing a memo agrees and accepts the proposal, but Mr. Somnath Roy, learned counsel for the R2-cum-insurer without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion of this Court.

In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the law laid down by Apex court in Taslim Parvin & Another vrs. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another; 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), since the claimant-appellant agrees and accepts the proposal of the Court through his counsel and the learned counsel for the R-2-cum-insurer without disputing such proposal leaves it to the discretion and conscience of this Court, it is considered that the interest of justice would be best served, if the compensation amount is further increased by a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only which shall be payable by the insurer-R2 to the appellant-claimant.

In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of with direction to R2-cum-insurer to pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the claimant-appellant within eight weeks hence and in case of deposit of the enhanced compensation, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant-appellant in cash. Needless to say, proper Court fee on valuation of the appeal be realized from the appellant.