BABITA SAHU vs BHAGIRATHI SAHOO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.182 of 2012
CNR No. ODHC010038652012

(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

Babita Sahu … Appellant
-versus-

Bhagirathi Sahoo and
another
… Respondents


For Appellant : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate
(for R-2); None for R-1


CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY




DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.11.2026 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

MACA No.182 of 2012 & Misc. Case No.315 of 2012

1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
Appeal on merit, but also the Misc. Case No.315 of 2012
filed U/S.5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for condonation of
delay of 115 days in preferring the Appeal to challenge
the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by the
nd
learned 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur (in
short, the “Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.297 of 1989
directing the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-cum-R2
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 1 of 7

herein (In short, “the insurer”) to pay the claimant-
appellant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with
simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. three years
preceding from the date of judgment till payment is
made.
2. The facts in nut shell are that in an
accident which took place on 26.06.1989 at about 1PM,
the New Maruti Van (In short “the offending vehicle”)
carrying the Appellant-claimant coming from Cuttack to
Rourkela capsized near Motanga resulting in injury to the
Appellant-claimant and he was, accordingly, treated at
SCBMCH, Cuttack as an indoor patient. An FIR being filed
at local police, the same was registered in Motanga PS
and upon a claim being filed by the Appellant, the same
was registered in MAC No. 297 of 1989. Accordingly, the
tribunal proceeded in the matter by issuing notice to the
owner and insured of the offending vehicle, but the
owner-cum-R1 appeared and filed its written statement
only to contend that since the offending vehicle in
question being insured with R2, R2 is liable to pay the
compensation, but R2 filed its written statement
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 2 of 7

admitting the insurance policy of the offending vehicle,
however, it took a stand in its written statement that
since the owner of the vehicle was driving the van and he
was not having valid DL, the insurer is not liable to pay
the compensation.
3. On the inter se pleadings between the
parties, necessary issues were framed and only the
claimant led oral evidence of three witnesses in addition
to documentary evidence under Exts. 1 to 8 as against
the documentary evidence of copy of the FIR by the
Respondents. On conclusion of the inquiry, the learned
tribunal after hearing the parties upon analyzing the
evidence on record passed the impugned judgment
granting compensation indicated supra to the Appellant-
claimant. Being aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation, the Appellant has challenged the
impugned judgment in this appeal.
4. Heard, Mr. Antaryami Dash, learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant and Mr. Santosh
Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for R2 in the matter and
perused the record. None appears for R1-cum-owner of
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 3 of 7

the offending vehicle and there being no finding against
him, re-issuance of notice against him(R1) stands
dispensed with.
5. Admittedly, there is a delay of 115 days,
but the appellant is the claimant and the delay in
preferring the Appeal has not been challenged by the
insurer by filing any written objection and the insurer only
challenges such delay by advancing oral objection. Delay
of long duration can be taken into account for passing
any adverse order in not condoning the delay, but delay
of such shorter duration should always be considered
liberally. It is also no longer res integra that when
substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted
against each other, the cause of substantial justice
deserves to be accepted and the appellant herein being
the claimant should not be prevented from agitating his
grievance due to delay in filing the Appeal. This Court,
accordingly, considers that the delay of 115 days having
justifiably explained by the appellant, the same needs to
be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 115 days in
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 4 of 7

preferring the Appeal stands condoned. Hence, the Misc.
Case No.315 of 2012 stands disposed of.
6. After having considered the rival
submissions on merit in the Appeal and upon perusal of
record, it appears that the claimant has albeit challenged
the award for non-consideration of his Disability
Certificate and disallowing interest w.e.f date of filing of
claim application, but it appears that the claimant has
only exhibited the photo copy of the Disability Certificate,
however, no explanation has offered by the claimant as to
why the original Discharge Certificate was withheld or not
exhibited in evidence. Besides, the Disability Certificate
has not been produced before this Court also, but it is
claimed by the Appellant that he suffers from 40%
permanent disability, however, it is found from the
impugned judgment that the Appellant-claimant has
sustained fracture of humerus shaft of right side and
fracture of both bones of right hands and the treatment
paper reveals that nailing had been done in humerus,
radius and ulna. It is also not in dispute that the claimant
was treated at SCBMCH, Cuttack as an indoor patient
from 26.06.1989 till 15.07.1989 and subsequently, he
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 5 of 7

was also admitted at SCBMCH, Cuttack for removal of
implants from 16.07.1990 to 31.07.1990. The claimant
has in fact not produced any document in support of his
claim for incurring expense of Rs. 30,000/- for his
medical treatment, but the learned tribunal has granted
Rs. 20,000/- for his treatment and Rs. 10,000/- for pain
and suffering as well as Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities
in life and future inconvenience. Hence, the total
compensation as awarded to the claimant is Rs. 50,000/-,
but no valid document or any evidence, which were
ignored by the tribunal have been highlighted before this
Court warranting enhancement of the compensation to
the claimant. This Court, therefore, does not find any
reason to enhance the compensation amount, but when it
comes to imposition of interest, it is found that the
learned tribunal has erroneously applied the law while
imposing interest on the compensation amount by
directing 6% interest payable on compensation w.e.f 3
years preceding from the date of the judgment which
needs to be set aside and modified. This Court, however,
considers that the Appellant is entitled to interest @ 6 %
per annum w.e.f date of filing of the claim application till
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 6 of 7

its actual realization. At this stage, Mr. Dash, learned
counsel for the Appellant, however, clarifies that the
award is yet to be satisfied by the insurer and if that be
so, the insurer shall satisfy the award within eight weeks
hence.
7. In the result, the Appeal stands disposed
of accordingly with modification of interest as indicated
above. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the
learned Tribunal stands confirmed, but the interest shall
be payable on compensation w.e.f the date of filing of
claim till realization. The insurer is accordingly, directed
to pay the modified compensation amount by depositing
it before the tribunal for its disbursal to the claimant
within eight weeks hence.


(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 9 day of November, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 10-Nov-2026 18:48:50
MACA No.182 of 2012 Page 7 of 7