BIJAY KUMAR ROUL vs V. KRISHNA KUMAR
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.231 of 2023
CNR No. ODHC010207892023
(An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988).
Bijay Kumar Roul Appellant
…
-versus-
V. Krishna Kumar & Another Respondents
…
For Appellant : Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. S. Das, Advocate (R-2)
None (R-1)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 05.11.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is an appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) by the claimant-
appellant assailing the quantum of compensation as
awarded by the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2023
th
passed by the learned 7 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in MAC No.70 of 2010 directing R2-The
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.(in short
“the insurer”) to pay a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- along with
simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 20.05.2010 till its
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 1 of 7
actual realization to the claimant as compensation in an
application U/S.166 of the Act for the injuries sustained
by him in a motor vehicular accident
2. Facts being largely not disputed are not
reiterated to avoid prolixity, but it needs to be stated
here that the insurer has already satisfied the award by
not challenging the same in any appeal and thereby, the
finding of the learned tribunal qua the monthly income of
the claimant at Rs.20,000/- and 60% permanent
disability cannot be disputed by the insurer.
3. Heard Mr. Bishnu Brata Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Subrat Satapathy, learned
counsel for R-2 in the matter and perused the record.
None appears for R-1 despite duly noticed.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and upon perusal of record, the only dispute remains
right now between the claimant and insurer is with regard
to quantum of compensation, but the claimant challenges
the quantum of compensation for computing the same
without applying multiplier method since he is 60%
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 2 of 7
permanent disabled and loss of future income can only be
computed by following multiplier method. It is of course
true that the learned tribunal has accepted the
permanent disability of the claimant at 60%, but it has
not granted any compensation by following the multiplier
method and thereby, the computation of compensation
needs to be revisited. What cannot be disputed that the
merely because the claimant is 60% permanently
disabled, it would not automatically lead to a conclusion
of 60% functional or 60% whole body disability. It is
found from Ext.6 that the claimant has suffered post-
traumatic deformity of both legs and stiffness of both
ankle and his disability has been quantified as 60%
permanent disability of loco-motor impairment, but he
has not been diagnosed or considered as 60% permanent
disabled of whole body.
5. The learned tribunal has of course taken the
profession of the claimant as script writer preparing script
for TV serials, but it has discarded the profession of
claimant as an Advocate, however, the learned counsel
for the appellant strongly submits that the appellant is
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 3 of 7
not only a script writer, but also an advocate by
profession. Adverting to such contention, it appears that
the learned tribunal has categorically and specifically
observed in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment that
no document has been filed to show that the appellant
was practicing the profession of advocacy. Besides, the
appellant has not averred anything in his claim
application that he has conducted cases in courts, but on
the other hand, the appellant has produced a certificate
issued by Nayantika Studio as a member of Utkal
Television Parivar vide Ext.7 showing his monthly income
at 20,000/- which was rightly accepted by the learned
tribunal. In this situation and in absence of any concrete
evidence to show that the appellant is practicing as an
advocate, this Court only concurs with the finding of the
learned tribunal that the appellant is a script writer and
he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
6. It was not only observed, but also found
from the evidence on record that due to accident, the
appellant had sustained fracture of right femur, right
pelvis, comminuted fracture of left tibia and fibula,
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 4 of 7
degloving injury involving woes of right thigh and
buttock, compartment syndrome of right leg, fat
embolism, hematoma in spleen and his discharge
certificate proved under Ext.8 discloses the aforesaid
injuries on his person and he was admitted to Ayush
hospital on 20.11.2009 and discharged on 08.12.2009.
The aforesaid evidence clearly suggests that the appellant
has not sustained any injury on his hand/palm/fingers,
which are his principal organs for script writing but
looking at the injuries keeping in view the permanent
disability of the claimant quantified at 60% by the Medical
Board, Nayagarh, this Court takes the functional disability
of the appellant at 25% for calculation of loss of future
income. It is to be remembered here that the income of
the appellant would likely to increase in future and
thereby, applying the future prospect formula as laid
down by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and others;
(2017) 16 SCC 680 , the appellant is entitled to 40%
towards future prospect. Accordingly, taking the
unchallenged monthly income of the injured-claimant at
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 5 of 7
Rs.20,000/- and adding 40% of Rs.20,000/- towards
future prospect, the net monthly income of the injured-
claimant would come to Rs.28,000/-, but since the
appellant is aged about 34 years at the relevant time of
accident, appropriate multiplier would be 16. Thus, the
loss of future income of the claimant would come to 25%
of (Rs.28,000/- X 12 X 16) =Rs.13,44,000/-. Hence, the
claimant is entitled to different amount under following
heads: -
(i) Cost of treatment Rs.5,00,000/-
(ii) Loss of future income including
Rs.13,44,000/-
loss of income during treatment
(iii) Loss of pain, suffering and
Rs.2,00,000/-
trauma, shortening of life and
loss of amenities
Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Attendant’s charges
(v) Special diet for 30 days Rs.30,000/-
(vi) Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.21,09,000/-
7. Since the appellant is entitled to interest @
6% per annum and the insurer has already paid the
compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- together with the
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 6 of 7
aforesaid interest, the appellant is only entitled to the f
differential amount Rs.21,09,000/ – Rs.7,30,000/- =
Rs.13,79,000/-together with simple interest @ 6% per
annum w.e.f.20.05.2010 until the date of actual
realization.
8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed on
contest, but in the circumstances, there is no order as to
costs. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to further
compensation of Rs.13,79,000/- together with simple
interest @ 6% w.e.f. 20.05.2010 till its payment. The
insurer shall accordingly pay to the claimant the re-
determined enhanced compensation within eight weeks
hence and in case of deposit of the enhanced
compensation before the learned tribunal; the same shall
be disbursed to the claimant-appellant by keeping 80% in
fixed deposits.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 05 November, 2026/Jayakrushna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Kataka
Date: 06-Nov-2026 17:19:45
MACA No.231 of 2023
Page 7 of 7