Allowed

Sujit Ghosh v. Samir Das and Anr.

Tripura HC28 Jul 2017MAC App./157/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an appeal against the compensation award in a motor accident claim. The High Court found the Tribunal was economical in assessing air ticket costs, pain and suffering, and lodging expenses. The court enhanced the award amount and modified the impugned judgment accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was enhanced by ₹36,252/- with interest; the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months. The impugned judgment was modified.

Sujit Ghosh Vs Samir Das and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A

¶2

MAC APP. NO.157/2013

¶3

Sri Sujit Ghosh, Son of Sri Pijush Ghosh, Resident of Town Indranagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799005, District-West Tripura.

¶4

…. Claimant -Appellant.

¶5

-: Versus :-

¶6

Sri Samir Das, S/O. Sri Chinta Haran Das, Resident of Birendranagar, P.O.-Birendranagar, P.S.-Jirania, District- West Tripura. (Owner of TR-01-C-2776, MAX).

¶7

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 6-Mantribari Road, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura. (Insurer of TR-01-C-2776, MAX).

¶8

….. Opposite Party-Respondents.

¶9

B E F O R E

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. H. Debnath, Advocate. Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate. Date of hearing & Judgment : 28-07-2017.

¶12

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶13

Heard Mr. H. Debnath, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also

¶14

heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer.

¶15

In this appeal, the appellant is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 16.09.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No.183 of 2011 awarding a compensation of ₹3,53,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

¶16

MAC APP. NO.157/ 2013 Page 1 of 5

¶17

The facts giving rise to this appeal, as pleaded by the appellant, is that on 30.03.2011, when he along with his friend was proceeding by his motorcycle bearing registration No.TR-01-G-9027 from Bodhjang Chowmuhani towards Laxminarayan Bari, the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-C-2776 (MAX) coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motorcycle at Power House Chowmuhani and, as a result, he and his friend fell down from the bike and sustained grievous injuries on their persons. After the accident, he was shifted to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala and was treated there as an indoor patient from 30.03.2011 to 01.04.2011. As he sustained head injuries and fracture on his leg which were grievous in nature, he was referred to SSKM/ AMRI Hospital, Kolkata on 01.04.2011. When no seat was found available in the referred hospitals, he was admitted to Bellona Nursing Home & Diagnostic Centre at Kolkata and was treated there as indoor patient for 14 days from 02.04.2011 to 15.04.2011 and again for 4 days from 25.04.2011 to 28.04.2011 whereafter he got further treatment under a private medical practitioner at Agartala. He was again treated at Bellona Nursing Home & Diagnostic Centre at Kolkata for 4 days from 18.01.2013 to 21.01.2013 as indoor patient. As he sustained severe head injury, i.e. depressed fracture on his right parietal region with hemorrhagic contusion and compound fracture on his left leg which broke into two pieces, he had to undergo two major operations under G.A. for fixation of ILIM nail (L) on 03.04.2011 and for its removal on 19.01.2013. For all these treatments, he had to undertake 5(five) trips to Kolkata by air along with one attendant. In connection with this accident, the police registered East Agartala P.S. case No.74 of 2011 under Sections 279/338 IPC. He, therefore, claimed a sum of ₹12,50,000/as compensation by filing the claim petition for the injuries caused to him.

¶18

The claim petition was contested by both the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company by filing their respective written statements wherein they denied any liability to pay any compensation.

¶19

MAC APP. NO.157/2013 Page 2 of 5

¶20

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶21

Whether the claimant Sri Sujit Ghosh aged about 25 years has been injured in a Motor vehicle accident on 30.03.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. at Power House Chowmuhani, B.K. Road on the way of Budhjung Chowmuhani-Women’s College road, under the jurisdiction of East Agartala P.S. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01C-2776 (Max) by its driver?

¶22

Whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get any compensation due to the said injury, if so, what would be quantum of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same?

¶23

What other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled to?

¶24

At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding a sum of ₹3,53,600/- together with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition as already noticed earlier.

¶25

In the course of hearing, Mr. H. Debnath, the learned counsel for the appellant, has confined his submissions with respect to the findings of the Tribunal over the reimbursement of the prices of the air tickets, the award under the head of pain and sufferings and conveyance allowances etc., which, according to him, are much below the actual entitlement/expenditures of the appellant under the law. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to modify the impugned award by enhancing the same.

¶26

Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in a fair and reasonable manner while passing the impugned

¶27

MAC APP. NO.157/2013 Page 3 of 5

¶28

judgment, which does not call for the interference of this Court. He submits that the award of ₹3,53,600/- with the interest awarded by the Tribunal are just, fair and proportionate to the losses sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel for the insurer further submits that the appellant is unable to prove anything to enable to earn more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and should be upheld by this Court.

¶29

After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the rival parties and on going through the impugned judgment and other materials on record, I am of the view that some enhancement of the compensation amount is due to the appellant considering the various air travels (supported by air tickets) undertaken by him, the pain and sufferings sustained by him and the conveyance allowance, boarding and lodging expenses incurred by him at Kolkata, and the Tribunal did not consider all these aspects of the matter in their true perspective.

¶30

I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and other materials on record. In the first place, the air tickets exhibited by the appellant which are 5(five) in number would go to show that for the five rounds of trips between Agartala and Kolkata to get medical treatment, instead of ₹50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the correct amount should be ₹56,252/-. Secondly, the Tribunal is somehow economical in awarding ₹30,000/- for pain and sufferings. It is now a well settled law that for pain and sufferings the minimum amount usually awarded these days is ₹50,000/-. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to ₹50,000/- for pain and sufferings, which will be an increase of ₹20,000/- from the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thirdly, the conveyance allowance, boarding and lodging costs etc. awarded by the Tribunal to the order of ₹20,000/- is also on the lower side inasmuch as the appellant with his attendant had been staying in Kolkata for quite considerable period of time and was undertaking journey

¶31

MAC APP. NO.157/2013 Page 4 of 5

¶32

between airport and city wherein he was getting treatment. In this view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to further sum of ₹10,000/- in addition to ₹20,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

The total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is, therefore, enhanced by ₹36,252/- so as to make it ₹3,89,852/-. The respondent-insurer is, therefore, directed to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹36,252/- (rupees thirty six thousand two hundred fifty two) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition for payment to the appellant within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. As and when the enhanced amount with interest accrued thereon is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. The impugned judgment stands modified in the manner indicated above.

¶34

The appeal is allowed. Transmit the L.C. record.

¶35

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

MAC APP. NO.157/2013 Page 5 of 5

Sujit Ghosh v. Samir Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Ghosh v. Samir Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimai Debnath Vs Ratan Saha and Anr.

Abdul Oyahid @ Abdul Wahid and Anr. Vs Ms. P C Roy Choudhury and Sons and Anr.

Shib Shankar Dey Vs Bibha Deb

The Oriental Ins.co.ltd Vs Smt. Rinku Datta and 3 Ors.

Tripura Produce Co. Ltd. Vs Anil Plantation (P) Ltd.

Sabita Acharjee Vs Dipak Acharjee