NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BIGHNARAJ PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-representing the Insurance Company (in short, the "Insurer") are in an appeal U/S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") to challenge the quantum of compensation as awarded to the Respondent No.1(R1)-cum-claimant by the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned 3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar (in short, the "learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No.204 of 2016 directing the appellant No.2, who was OP No.2 in the original MAC Case to pay a sum of Rs.23,14,392/-together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of claim application till actual realization of the amount to the claimant-petitioner in the aforesaid MAC case.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the accident which gives to the present appeal took place on 22.06.2015 when R-1 namely Bighnaraj Panda, an advocate by profession (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") was coming from Cuttack on NH-5 by riding his Motor Cycle, he was dashed from behind by a Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-21-8813 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") near Bank of India, Rasulgarh Branch, Bhubaneswar as a result the claimant sustained serious injuries and treated at different Hospitals in Bhubaneswar; such as Nilachala, KIMS & SUM Hospitals. According to the claimant, the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and accordingly, Mancheswar PS Case No.230 of 2015 was registered which resulted in submission of charge-sheet. In the aforesaid background, when the claimant approached the learned Tribunal in application U/S.166 of the Act for compensation by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, he was awarded with compensation indicated supra by the impugned judgment under different heads enlisted therein, but the insurer being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard, Mr. Subrat Satpathy, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahy, learned counsel for the R-1 in the appeal and perused the record. None appears for R-2 despite valid service of notice.