Partly allowed

Biswajit Ghosh v. Kingshuk Ghosh

Tripura HC29 Jun 2017MAC App./16/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal regarding motor accident compensation, the High Court partially allowed the appeal. The court enhanced the appellant's compensation by increasing his assessed monthly income from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 7,000 based on applicable minimum wage rates and awarding additional miscellaneous expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,62,717 including interest at 9% per annum from filing date; Rs. 7,000 monthly income assessed; Rs. 25,000 awarded for miscellaneous expenses.

Biswajit Ghosh Vs Kingshuk Ghosh — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

MAC APP 16 of 2015

¶3

Sri Biswajit Ghosh ,

¶4

son of late Jaharlal Ghosh, resident of Sipahijala, P.O. Bishalgarh, P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sipahijala, Tripura

¶5

… Appellant

¶6

Versus –

¶7

1. Sri Kingshuk Ghosh , son of Rabindra Chandra Ghosh, resident of Ganaraj Chowmuhani, Laxminarayanbari Road, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura (Owner of the vehicle bearing no. TR-01-M-1693, truck)

¶8

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Divisional Office at Central Road, Agartala, West Tripura, represented by its Divisional Manager, (Insurer of the vehicle bearing no. TR-01-M-1693, truck)

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶12

For the appellant : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate. For the respondents : None Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and Order : 29.06.2016 Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶13

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶14

Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents despite due notice from this court.

¶15

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 6.11.2012 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 72 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, West Tripura, Agartala .

¶16

3. This is an appeal by the victim of the road traffic accident which occurred on 14.11.2010 at a place on Bypass

¶17

MAC APP 16 of 2015

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

road near Nagicherra at about 1800 hours. When the appellant was waiting on the road side suddenly the vehicle bearing no. TR-01-M-1963 (truck) which was being driven towards Amtali in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant-appellant. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was immediately rushed to the Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM teaching hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to Kolkata where he was treated in Bhattacharjee Orthopaedic & Related Research Centre on 16.11.2010. He was treated there till 01.12.2010.

¶20

4. This appeal is structured fundamentally on two grounds viz. (i) even though the claimant-appellant was a mason by profession, his income was assessed at Rs.3,000/per month and thus his loss of income was assessed by the tribunal and (ii) no compensation was given for the miscellaneous expenses for the treatment.

¶21

Mr. Datta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that beyond these two grounds of objection, the appellant has not assigned any other ground for consideration.

¶22

6. This court has scrutinized the statement of the victim in the inquiry before the tribunal where he had categorically stated that he was a mason and he was earning Rs. 4,800/per month. In the cross-examination carried out by the insurance company they confronted the statement as made in

¶23

MAC APP 16 of 2015

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

the cross-examination by way of projecting denial. But the claimant-appellant did accede to such denial. However, there is no denial to the statement that the claimant-appellant was working as mason.

¶26

7. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the statutory provision of the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wage at the relevant point of time was Rs.340/- per day for a construction worker (the mason). Even if one mason is engaged for 20 days, the monthly income would come to Rs. 6,840/- say Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, the finding as returned by the tribunal is interfered with. The monthly income of the claimant-appellant be assessed at Rs.7,000/per month. Thus, for 6(six) months, the period he had completely lost his income, he should be compensated by giving a sum of Rs.42,000/- in lieu of Rs. 18,000/-. So far, the other miscellaneous expenses are concerned, this court by way of a guess work is inclined to award another sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant-appellant. So far, the other components are concerned this court will not interfere with.

¶27

8. Hence, the total compensation would be Rs.2,62,717/-This amount will carry interest @9% per annum from the day of filing the petition i.e. 12.02.2011 till the day of payment. The insurer namely Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the noticee shall make the payment within a period of 2(two) months from the day when a copy

¶28

MAC APP 16 of 2015

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

of this order will be received by the insurer-respondent on deducting the amount the insurer-respondent, the respondent No.2 has already paid. On deposit of the said amount in the tribunal, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to receive the entire amount.

¶31

9. Accordingly the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

A copy of this order be supplied to the parties.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Saikat

¶35

MAC APP 16 of 2015

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Biswajit Ghosh v. Kingshuk Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Ghosh v. Kingshuk Ghosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manilal Malakar Vs T.K.V.I Board and Ors.

Hemendra Chakraborty Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Subhash Deb Roy Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bhaskar Dasgupta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Srabani Das Vs State of Tripura and 3 Ors.

Rakhi Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.