Remanded

Swapan Barman v. Rajat Chakraborty and Another

Tripura HC25 Aug 2017MAC App./46/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice allowed this appeal against a compensation award of ₹3,68,780 as the appellant failed to undergo a medical examination regarding his disability and loss of earning capacity. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh trial on the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of and the case remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura, for a fresh trial.

Swapan Barman Vs Rajat Chakraborty and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC APP. NO.46/2013

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

*Present:*
For the appellant	: Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
	Mr. S. Adhikari, Advocate.
For the respondents	: Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

¶5

25.08.2017.

¶6

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶7

Dissatisfied with the compensation of ₹3,68,780/- awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura in the judgment dated 06.02.2012 of T.S. (MAC) No.25 of 2011, the appellant is filing this appeal for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

¶8

In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined himself to two issues for enhancement of the compensation, namely, (i) the Tribunal fails to award future income of 30% and (ii) the adoption of a multiplier of 5 for determination of the dependency is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case.

¶9

On the other hand, Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and submits that the legality of the future income of 30% to be added to the income of the appellant in the age group of 40-50 years is yet to be finally decided by the larger Bench of the Apex Court, which now seized with the matter and, the principle cannot, as such, be applied on the facts of this case.

¶10

MAC APP. NO.46/2013

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

It is not disputed at the Bar that the appellant did not examine any medical expert to determine the extent of his physical disability including whether it is permanent or not as well as the loss of earning capacity sustained by him due to such disability sustained by him in the accident. In the absence of any proper finding on this issue, just and fair compensation cannot be determined. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law.

¶13

The case is, therefore, remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura for fresh trial. It shall be open to both the parties to adduce further evidence on this issue. On the basis of such findings, the Tribunal may pass a fresh award.

¶14

Resultantly, this appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. As the accident took place in 2010, an attempt will be made by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura to dispose of the case preferably within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the record.

¶15

Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.

¶16

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

Pulak

¶18

MAC APP. NO.46/2013

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Swapan Barman v. Rajat Chakraborty and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapan Barman v. Rajat Chakraborty and Another

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

Debasree Debnath Vs Dipak Sarkar

Asish Dey Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

The State of Tripura Vs Ajoy Debbarma

Pranay Deb on Behalf of Accd. Subir Dey and Anr. Vs State of Tripura

Md. Nurul Islam Vs the State of Tripura

Tutan Das Vs the State of Tripura