SOMANATH DAS vs JHILULATA DAS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MACA No.227 of 2021
CNR No. ODHC010411132021


Somanath Das ..... Appellant

Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Karunakar Das
-versus-

1. Rajkishore Das (Dead) ..... Respondents
1(a). Jhilulata Das
1(b). Pradeepta Kumar Das
1(c) Sarmistha Das
2. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd,
Division Office, Mangalabag,
Cuttack
3. Deepak Ranjan Mangaraj
4. The Executive (Legal),
M/s. ICICI Lombard Gen.
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar.


Represented by Adv. –
M/s. Nibedita Mohanty, T.K.
Mohanty, P.Mangaraj
(For Respondent No.2)
M/s. Jayasankar Mishra,
H.Mishra, C. Nayak, S.Dash

(For Respondent No.4)
---------------------

CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

__________________________________________________________

Date of hearing & judgment : 27.08.2026

__________________________________________________________

A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, the
learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-National Insurance

Page 1 of 10.

Company Ltd. and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.4-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Perused the
appeal memo and the grounds taken therein as well as the impugned
judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.
3. As per the previous order, since the Respondent Nos.1(a) to
1(c) and 3 are not likely to be affected by this judgment, the service
of notice upon them was waived.
4. By filing the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, the Claimant-Appellant has approached this
Court thereby challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by
rd th
the learned 3 Additional District Judge-cum-4 M.A.C.T., Cuttack
in Motor Accident Claim Case No.660 of 2014 thereby awarding
total compensation of Rs.10,79,625/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization
of amount. The learned Tribunal also awarded penal interest @ 12%
in the event the awarded amount is not deposited before the Tribunal
within two months from the date of the aforesaid judgment. Being
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal, wherein the loss of future prospect has been assessed @
75% on the basis of the expert opinion at Exhibit-7, the Appellant
has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
5. While assessing the quantum of compensation as has been
ascertained by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the Appellant
contended that the Appellant was working as a Manager in a Stone
Crosser Unit, as such, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He
further submitted that the learned Tribunal, while determining the
income of the Appellant, has taken into consideration the income of

Page 2 of 10.

the Appellant to be at the rate Rs.5,700/- per month. He further
contended that such monthly income has been assessed and fixed on
the basis of guess work, which is far from reality. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as
Manager in a Stone Crosser Unit, the Petitioner was earning higher
income in every month. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to
consider the same while assessing the monthly income of the
Appellant. Accordingly, it was submitted that the annual income of
the Appellant has not been correctly determined.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant-
Claimant further contended that the Appellant-Claimant had
sustained injury in the road accident that had occurred on 21.05.2014
at about 3:25 A.M. while travelling in the offending bus bearing
Registration No.OR-05-AD-0085 from Chandikhole to Keonjhar.
The accident occurred at Balijodi Chhak on N.H. 215, as the Bus in
which the Appellant-Claimant was travelling, collided against a
standing Truck bearing Registration No.OR09-Q-1003. He further
contended that the offending vehicle, was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, has caused in the accident. Records reveal that as
a result of such accident, the Appellant-Claimant sustained grievous
injuries and whereafter he was shifted first to Ghatgaon Government
Hospital and thereafter to Chanakya Hospital, Cuttack where a
surgery was performed on the left leg of the Appellant-Claimant and
eventually the left leg of the Appellant-Claimant below the knee was
amputated. The Appellant-Claimant remained on treatment as an
indoor patient in the abovenoted Hospital from 21.05.2014 to
02.06.2014. The Appellant-Claimant had also sustained several

Page 3 of 10.

other injuries all over his body.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, referring to the
medical evidence brought on record during trial, contended before
this Court that the doctor has opined that the Appellant-Claimant has
sustained 75% permanent disability. He further contended that
although it has been shown on record that the Appellant-Claimant
has sustained 75% disability, however, the functional disability that
matters for the purpose of determination of the quantum of
compensation, ought to have been taken at 100% for the purpose of
calculation of future earnings. In the aforesaid context, learned
counsel for the Appellant first referred to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas
Sabata and another, reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 222 and
submitted before this Court that although that was a case under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, however, taking into consideration
the nature of the injury and the functional disability caused, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately concluded that such disability is a
permanent disability, as has been defined under the said Act. Thus,
the victim in that case was not in a position to perform the work
which he was performing prior to accident. Accordingly, it was held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such injury causing permanent
disability has resulted in total loss of income of the Claimant.
Accordingly, the compensation has been awarded.
8. Similarly, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon a later
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of S. Ettiappan v. D. Kumar and Another, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 3690 . On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that

Page 4 of 10.

the facts of that case are almost identical to facts of the present case.
In the reported judgment, the Claimant sustained injuries in a road
accident, which has resulted in the amputation of his leg below the
knee. In para-7.1 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
opined that it is the functional disability that is to be taken into
consideration for the award of future loss of income. In the said
judgment, though the doctors have assessed physical disability to
whole body at 70%, it was substituted by the Tribunal on its own to
be 50% functional disability in the absence of any material available
on record. Eventually, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as a
result of such functional disability the claimant in that reported case
was unable to perform any duty and, as such, he was not in a
position to earn anything in future. It has been categorically held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for any kind of physical or manual
activity a person requires both legs.
9. Considering the nature of work that was being performed by
the Claimant in the reported case and further keeping in view the fact
that the right leg of the Claimant was amputated below the knee
rendering him immobile and unable to discharge his daily routine
work as a loader, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the
compensation amount. It has not been established in the reported
judgment that the Claimant was carrying on any other avocation to
earn his livelihood. As such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of S. Ettiappan (supra) has held that the assessment of 70%
permanent disability is to be considered as 100% functional
disability in the reported case. Thus, the same results in an absolute
loss of future income and accordingly proceeded to revise the

Page 5 of 10.

compensation awarded by the Tribunal in that case. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant submitted
before this Court that the case of the Appellant being identical in
nature to the factual scenario of the case that has been decided in S.
Ettiappan’s case (supra), the Appellant is also entitled to 100% loss
of income, as a result of 100% functional disability due to
amputation of his left leg, keeping in view the nature of work being
performed by both.
10. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.2 & 4-
Insurance Companies stated before this Court that since it is a case
of composite negligence, both Insurance Companies have been
directed to pay the compensation to the Claimant-Appellant in equal
proportion. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.2 &
4-Insurance Companies further stated before this Court that, even if,
the left leg of the Appellant is amputated, given the advancement in
medical sciences, an artificial limb can very well be arranged for the
Appellant and he can still be engaged in a gainful manner to earn
some livelihood. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any
illegality in accepting the functional disability at 70% and,
accordingly, awarded the compensation amount in favour of the
Appellant-Claimant. In such view of the matter, learned counsels
appearing for the Respondents No.2 & 4-Insurance Companies
submitted before this Court that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any illegality which would call for any interference by
this Court in the present appeal. As such, it was stated that since the
appeal is devoid of merit, it is liable to be dismissed.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

Page 6 of 10.

counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful
analysis of the rival contentions, further taking note of the factual
background of the present case as well as the impugned judgment
dated 19.02.2021 at Annexure-1, this Court observes that the
Appellant-Claimant has approached this Court by filing the present
appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount.
With regard to the assessment of monthly as well as annual income
of the Appellant-Claimant, this Court found that no conclusive
evidence was brought on record on behalf of the Appellant-Claimant
to assist the Tribunal in accurately assessing the income of the
Appellant-Claimant at the relevant point of time. Thus, under such
circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in
indulging in guess-work to arrive at the income of the Appellant-
Claimant. Neither the Appellant has brought on record anything
suggesting any higher income of the Appellant-Claimant, nor was
the same rebutted by the Respondents-Insurance Companies
compelling the Tribunal to disbelieve such assessment of the
Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that
there exists no ground on the part of this Court to interfere with such
finding of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly as well as annual
income of the Appellant-Claimant in the absence of any specific
material to the contrary. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal
with regard to the monthly as well as annual income of the
Appellant-Claimant is hereby confirmed.
12. The next question that falls for consideration in the present
appeal is with regard to the total quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 19.02.2021, has

Page 7 of 10.

awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,79,625/. While arriving at
such figure, the learned Tribunal has assessed the functional
disability of the Appellant-Claimant @ 75% and, accordingly, the
loss of future earning of the Claimant has been assessed on such
basis.
13. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant, at this juncture,
referring to the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
submitted before this Court that such calculation of loss of future
income is not correct in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra), though the same was
controverted by the learned counsels appearing for the Respondents-
Insurance Companies. On a careful analysis of the injury sustained
by the Appellant-Claimant, further taking note of the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra),
this Court found that the nature of the injury therein is almost
identical to the one involved in the present case i.e. the leg of the
Claimant was amputated and he was not in a position to perform his
duty physically.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the loss of
income is to be assessed at 100% in the absence of any other
evidence on record indicating that the Claimant was engaged in any
other gainful avocation earning any livelihood. In the present case,
there is nothing on record to conclude that the Claimant was in any
way engaged in any other avocation or was earning a livelihood in
one way or the other after he had sustained injuries. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in S. Ettiappan’s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of

Page 8 of 10.

the present case. Accordingly, the assessment of loss of future
earning by the Tribunal @ 75% on the basis of permanent disability
as has been reported by the Examining Medical Board to the tune of
75%, requires to be reconsidered and revised keeping in view the
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ettiappan’s
case (supra).
15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
present case and considering the materials available on record as
well as the evidence led by both sides, this Court is of the view that
in the present circumstances where the Claimant has undergone
amputation of his left leg rendering him virtually jobless and unable
to perform any physical or manual activities whereby he could have
earned his livelihood. Hence, this Court is of the view that the loss
of future income is to be assessed at 100% even though the
functional disability has been shown at 75%.
16. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present
case, this Court found that the Petitioner is entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.13,57,500/-, which has been calculated as
follows:-
(Rs.7,125 x 12 x 13 x 100% towards functional disability =
Rs.11,11,500/- + other claims allowance on other heads.)
Total compensation of claim is a sum of Rs.13,57,500/-.
17. Since the Respondent Nos.2 and 4-Insurnace Company have
already deposited the awarded amount of Rs.10,79,625/-, which the
learned counsel for the parties have agreed to round off to a further
consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. As such, the Respondent Nos.2

Page 9 of 10.

and 4-Insurance Companies are hereby directed to deposit a further
consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty
Thousand), in equal proportion, towards full and final settlement of
the claim amount in addition to the amount which has already been
deposited pursuant to impugned award before the Tribunal, within a
period of eight weeks. The award of 12% penal interest is hereby
waived.
18. It is stated at bar that the awarded amount along with interest
has already been satisfied since the same has already been deposited
before the Tribunal. Hence, the Respondents No.2 and 4-Insurance
Companies are only required to deposit the enhanced consolidated
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) before
Tribunal as has been directed hereinabove.
19. With the aforesaid modification and direction, the MACA
stands partly allowed with other terms and conditions in the
impugned award shall remain intact.


( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge






Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
th
The 27 August, 2026/Debasis Aech, Secretary


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 02-Sep-2026 12:07:41

Page 10 of 10.