Partly allowed

Mrinmoy Datta v. Ajoy Kr. Shil and Anr.

Tripura HC20 Jul 2017MAC App./56/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the Court enhanced compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It held that the Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's claimed monthly income of ₹4,500 was perverse as it was never disputed by the insurance company during cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from ₹1,35,700 to ₹2,08,200. Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with 9% interest.

Mrinmoy Datta Vs Ajoy Kr. Shil and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC App No.56/2012

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present:

¶5

For the appellant : Mr. S. Dutta, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. P. Gautam, Adv.

¶6

20.07.2017.

¶7

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurance company. No representation from the respondent-owner despite proper service of notice upon him.

¶8

Dissatisfied with the award of ₹1,35,700/as a compensation for the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident awarded by the Tribunal in his judgment dated 12.04.2012 in TS(MAC) No. 260 of 2008, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

¶9

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14.04.2008 at about 1400 hours, while the appellant was walking along kamalpur-Ambassa road under the Salema Police Station by keeping the left side of the road, a truck bearing registration No. TR-02-B-1513 (Canter Truck) coming from behind driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him whereupon the vehicle went off the road and turned turtle. The accident caused injuries on the person of the appellant whereafter he was taken to Kulai Hospital and from there to G.B.P Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted from 14.04.2008 to 01.05.2008. Even after he was discharged from the hospital, he had to attend the OPD from time to time. The appellant claimed that at the time of the accident, he was aged about 45 years, was working as a mason and used to earn ₹4,500/- per month from his occupation. He, therefore, the claim petition claiming a

¶10

MAC App No.56/2012 Page 1 of 3

¶11

compensation of ₹17,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in that vehicular accident.

¶12

The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company by filing their respective written statements wherein they denied any liability. However, the Tribunal, at the conclusion of the trial, passed the impugned judgment awarding the amount of compensation referred to earlier.

¶13

The principal contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to the assessment of income at ₹3000/- per month by the Tribunal, which, according to him, is perverse in as much as the statement of the appellant to this effect that the income of the injured was ₹4500/- per month was never denied or disputed by the respondents at the time of taking the case. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced by determining his income at ₹4,500/- per month.

¶14

The learned counsel for the insurer, however, submits that no evidence was produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim that he was earning more than ₹3000/- per month and his self serving statement will not be enough to hold that he was earning ₹4,500/- per month. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment, which was passed by the Tribunal after taking all aspects of the matter.

¶15

The fact that the appellant is a mason by profession is not in doubt. It is interesting to note that the insurer in their crossexamination never denied that the appellant was earning ₹4500/per month. Non-denial amounts to admission and an admitted fact need not be proved. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied

¶16

MAC App No.56/2012 Page 2 of 3

¶17

that the appellant was earning ₹4,500/- per month at the time of the accident. The finding to the contrary made by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. As for the other findings of the Tribunal, I do not find any ground for interference. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to ₹4,500 x 3 = ₹13,500/-. As the disability is for 5(five) years to the extent of 40%, the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at the rate of ₹4500/- per month for five years would come to ₹2,70,000/, out of which if 40% thereof is taken out, it will come to Rs.1,08,000/-. Thus, loss of earning of the appellant for 5(five) years with 40% disability would come to ₹1,08,000/-. The appellant is also entitled to a sum of ₹50,000/- for pain and sufferings. The total amount of compensation payable is, therefore, enhanced to ₹1,08,000/- + 13,500 + 50,000 + 36,700 = ₹2,08,200/-.

¶18

Thus, the amount of compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced from ₹1,35,700/- to ₹2,08,200/-. The Insurance Company is, therefore, directed to deposit with this Registry together the enhanced amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition with this Registry within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say, any amount already deposited or paid to the appellant shall stand adjusted. As and when the enhanced amount is deposited, the Registry will release the same in favour of the appellant after satisfying the usual formalities.

¶19

The impugned judgment is modified to the extent and the manner indicated above. Transmit the L. C. record forthwith.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

d.dey.

¶22

MAC App No.56/2012 Page 3 of 3

Mrinmoy Datta v. Ajoy Kr. Shil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrinmoy Datta v. Ajoy Kr. Shil 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

Swapna Majumderrakshit Vs the State of Tripura

Pankaj Saha Vs Jaya Saha and Anr.

Satyendra Sarkar Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Krishna Paul and Anr. Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

Shambhu Charan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Nitai Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.