Partly allowed

Bhulan Guha Roy v. Khokan Das and Anr.

Tripura HC24 Jul 2017MAC App./49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. While rejecting evidence for claimed medical expenses due to lack of documents, the Court added Rs. 35,000 for pain and suffering, modifying the award to Rs. 72,700 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 72,700 with interest at 9% per annum; insurer directed to deposit amount.

Bhulan Guha Roy Vs Khokan Das and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC App No.49/2016

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present:

¶5

For the appellant : Mr. D.C. Roy, Adv. Mr. A. K. Pal, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. A. Gan Choudhury, Adv.

¶6

24.07.2017.

¶7

Heard Mr. A. K. Pal, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Gan Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.1, West Tripura in TS(MAC) No.380 of 2013 awarding compensation of ₹37,700/- for the injury sustained by the appellant in the vehicular accident taking place on 15.01.2012, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

¶9

The facts giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.01.2012 at about 1300 hours the appellant was proceeding from his house to his business place by riding his bicycle on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, one Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-01-B-2071 was also proceeding along Agartala to Airport, which, when it reached Tantipara, Natunnagar, was knocked down by one Santro Car bearing registration No. TR-01-J-0781 coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner; the autorickshaw, in turn, hit the appellant in the process and then got capsized. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the G.B.P Hospital, Agartala where he received treatment up to 18.01.2012. Thereafter he was taken to Kolkata for better treatment and spent ₹2,50,000/-. A police case being Airport

¶10

MAC App No.49/2016 Page 1 of 4

¶11

P.S case No.02/2012 U/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered in connection with the said vehicular accident.

¶12

The appellant was said to 48 years old and a businessman running a restaurant with a monthly income of ₹20,000/- at the time of the accident. The appellant, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming compensation on the basis of the pleadings made above. The claim petition was contested by both the owner of the vehicles and the insurer by filing their respective written statements.

¶13

On the basis of the pleadings and documents the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶14

“(i) Did the claimant sustain any injury on 15.01.2012 at about 1 p.m at Natun Nagar, Tantipara on Agartala to Airport Road under Airport police Station in a road traffic accident involving the vehicles bearing registration No. TR-01-J0781(Santro Car) and TR-01-B-2071 (Auto Rickshaw) due to rash and negligent driving either or both the vehicles.

¶15

(ii) Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provision of M.V. Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?”

¶16

6. After taking evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of ₹37,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 03.10.2013. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded is too low keeping in mind the fact that he incurred, ₹2,50,000/- for his treatment. He also contends that the award of ₹15,000/- under the heading of pain and suffering is also on the lower side. He, therefore, submits that the compensation should be enhanced to the extent of ₹2,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer, however, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the same was passed after taking into

¶17

MAC App No.49/2016 Page 2 of 4

¶18

consideration all aspects of the matter, for which the interference of this Court is not called for.

¶19

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties. I have also perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not sustain any permanent disability, partial or otherwise. In so far as the expenditures for the treatment incurred by him are concerned, no case is made out for enhancement as there are no supporting documents which could justify such enhancement. In other words, the award made by the Tribunal under different heads is to be made only in accordance with the evidence produced by the appellant. Needless to say, compensation cannot be awarded on the basis of surmises or conjuncture or speculation or sympathy. The burden of proof is always upon the claimant to establish that he had actually incurred the expenditures claimed to have been incurred by him for his treatment by producing supporting documents, which are otherwise admissible in law. The Tribunal has found that the appellant was earning ₹9,000/- per month from the business run by him. In my view, the Tribunal is more than generous in determining the income of the appellant at ₹9,000/- per month. However, in the absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection against impugned judgment herein, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. Having said that, I am of the view that the Tribunal was too economical in awarding ₹15,000/- for pain and suffering keeping mind the nature of the accident in which the appellant found himself involved for no fault of his. In this view of the matter, the

¶20

MAC App No.49/2016 Page 3 of 4

¶21

appellant deserves another sum of ₹35,000/- for pain and suffering in addition to ₹15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal in this behalf. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to ₹37,700+₹35,000=₹72,700/-.

¶22

The appeal partly succeeds. The insurer is directed to deposit a sum of ₹72,700/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition to this Registry within a period of two months for payment to the appellant. Needless to say, any amount already deposited or paid to the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. The impugned judgment, therefore, stands modified to the extent indicated above. As and when the amount is paid, the same shall be released to the appellant after fulfilling the usual conditions without further reference to this Court. Transmit the LCR forthwith.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

d.dey.

¶25

MAC App No.49/2016 Page 4 of 4

Bhulan Guha Roy v. Khokan Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhulan Guha Roy v. Khokan Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Nanigopal Goswami and Ors.

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Jogyaswar Sutradhar and Ors.

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Tandra Paul Sutradhar and Ors.

New India Assu. Co. Ltd. Vs Shibendu Bijoy Dam and 2 Ors.

Bidyut Ghosh Vs the State of Tripura

Amal Sutradhar Vs State Of Tripura