United India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Sanatan Bhattacharya and Anr.

The appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman in M.A.C case No.139 of 2018.

¶12

The case of the claimants before the learned Trial Judge may be summed up thus:

¶13

The accident occurred on 08.08.2018 at about

¶14

4.20 p.m. the victim Sanatan Bhattacharya was standing on the roadside of Katwa-Kalna Road near bus stand, then one bus bearing WB 41/4251 in a rash and negligent manner and in a

¶15

2

¶16

high speed endangering human life and safety dashed against the victim while entering into the bus stand. The victim raised his hand to stop the bus. As a result of the accident the injured person sustained multiple grievous injuries and he was taken to Katwa Hospital and thereafter considering serious condition he was referred to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. The victim unable to do his work due to physical disability caused due to accident. He was a hawker before the accident and used to earn average Rs.200/- per day which would be Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶17

Pursuant to filing of the claim case, notice was issued upon the opposite parties. The opposite party United India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the base by filing written statement. The opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case.

¶18

Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. The learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the learned Advocates was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows:;

¶19

“Hence, it is -

¶20

ORDERED

¶21

that the instant MAC No.139 of 18 (Reg 139/18) be and the same is allowed on contest against OP

¶22

3

¶23

No.2, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and exparte against OP No.1, Ramkrishna Mondal.

¶24

The victim Sanatan Bhattacharya is entitled to get the awarded amount of Rs.2,98,663/- only (Rupees two lakhs ninety-eight thousand six hundred sixty-three only) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing this case from OP No.2; United India Insurance Company Ltd. till the date of realization.

¶25

The OP No.2, United India Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,98,663/- only (Rupees two lakhs ninety-eight thousand six hundred sixty-three only) to the victim Sanatan Bhattacharya. by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of him within two months from the date of this order, failing which the claimant is at liberty to put the decree into execution as per law.

¶26

The award shall carry an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of this case, till the date of realization of said award.”

¶27

The appellant insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge has come up with this instant appeal.

¶28

Heard learned Advocate for the appellant insurance company and learned Advocates for the respondent claimant.

¶29

4

¶30

Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Mrs. Sucharita Paul, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded to the claimant is excessive. Learned Advocate further submits that the victim suffered fracture injuries and there was no medical board.

¶31

Learned Advocate also submits that from the deposition of the doctor PW 2, who treated the claimant it appears that such facture injuries may be cured after one year. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that the income of the victim is considered Rs.5,000/- per month, thus the learned Judge erred in considering the total loss of income for one year Rs.1,00,000/- and further loss of future income of Rs.1,00,000/-. Learned Advocate submits that the expenses for the purpose of medical attendant is also unreasonable.

¶32

Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the respondent claimant submits that from the deposition of PW 2 the doctor who treated the claimant it is clear that the claimant suffered fracture injury and foreign body was implanted in his legs and he was admitted into hospital underwent a surgery on 17.08.2018 and he was discharged on 25.08.2018.

¶33

Learned Advocate further submits that the learned Trial Jude has considered the treatment

¶34

5

¶35

of the claimant victim, the nature of injury undergone and, thereafter, arrived at the conclusion of loss of income considering the occupation of the claimant victim to be hawker.

¶36

Learned Advocate further submits that no formula was applied as because the percentage of disability of claimant victim was not visible and whatever the learned Trial Judge considered from the facts and circumstances of the case as just and reasonable was awarded as compensation.

¶37

Mr. Roy submits that considering the quantum of compensation on the account of pain and suffering Rs.14,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for future treatment the said amounts are quite reasonable and very much required as the victim claimant in future requires further treatment.

¶38

With regard to the first submission of the appellant that annual loss of income considering the income of the victim as Rs.5,000/- per month can at best be Rs.60,000/- and what the learned Trial Judge awarded is excessive, this Court is of the view that considering the occupation of the victim claimant and the fact that mere arithmetical calculation is not sufficient to arrive at a just compensation, there is no error on the part of the learned Trial Judge to consider loss of income Rs.1,00,000/-

¶39

6

¶40

and further Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of future income.

¶41

It is to be kept in mind that a person who has suffered fracture injury and is unable to do normal work and move properly, if he is in service and posted in an office, may be able to attend office for the purpose of office work and perform day to day work may not be possible for a hawker who has to acquire the materials and, thereafter, take steps for sale of the same going from one place to another. Where the task of the hawker is laborious and uncertainty of income, the compensation in such a case should be awarded which in the opinion of the learned Judge as just and reasonable. Thus, with regard to awarding Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of income and Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to loss of future income, this Court does not find any error in the findings of the learned Trial Judge.

¶42

Although Tribunals and Courts are empowered to apply the guidelines with regard to arithmetical calculation, but under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Courts and Tribunals are empowered to award just and reasonable compensation.

¶43

In the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya reported in (2005) 6 SCC

¶44

7

¶45

236. The Hon;ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶46

“10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis “and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case “it is the overall picture that matters”, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.”

¶47

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

¶48

Indira Srivastava reported in AIR 2008 SC 845, the Hon’ble Court observed as follows:- “The expression 'just' must also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.”

¶49

With regard to other types of damages, namely, pain and suffering, medical treatment, loss of future amenities, loss of future treatment expenses and loss of expectation of life, this Court considering the period of stay in the hospital and the treatments undergone and the nature of occupation and the age of the victim, does not find any error of the findings of the learned Trial Judge.

¶50

8

¶51

In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that as the principal compensation awarded is just and reasonable, there is no scope to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge. However, with regard to the interest awarded, this Court is of the view that instead of 7% per annum interest at the rate of 6% per annum is just and reasonable.

¶52

Hence, the appeal FMA 1203 of 2025 along with all interlocutory applications stands disposed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge with regard to the principal amount of compensation awarded stands affirmed. However, with regard to the interest, the award stands modified to the extent that the interest to be awarded is 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till today.

¶53

Thus, the appellant insurance company shall deposit Rs.2,98,663/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till today before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta. Such deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

¶54

In the event, the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Judge is already deposited no further deposit be made. The respondent claimant will be entitled to withdraw the

¶55

9

¶56

compensation amount along with 6% interest per annum as well as accrued interest if any upon compliance of all necessary formalities. The balance amount, if any, along with accrued interest will be return to the appellant insurance company.

¶57

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶58

( BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. Sanatan Bhattacharya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. Sanatan Bhattacharya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Kaushalya Devi & Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors.

Dibakar Haldar Vs Union of India

M/S. Calcutta Bone Mills & Fertilsers (P) Ltd. Vs M/S. Das Organochem (P) Ltd.

The Future Generali India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Sushama Mahata and Ors.

Balaram Ghosh and Ors. Vs Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. and Anr.