Partly allowed

Dilip Saha v. Aparna Talapatra and Another

Tripura HC6 Jul 2017MAC App./81/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment, the Chief Justice allowed the appeal partly. The court enhanced the compensation for pain and sufferings from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 but upheld the Tribunal's findings on income and disability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for pain and sufferings enhanced to Rs. 50,000; total compensatory amount increased to Rs. 4,74,782 with 9% interest.

Dilip Saha Vs Aparna Talapatra and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC APP. NO.81/2013

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present: For the appellant : Mr. S.B. Debnath, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the respondent No.2 : Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate. 06.07.2017.

¶5

Heard Mr. S.B. Debnath, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company and Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1owner of the vehicle.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.06.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No.93 of 2011 awarding a compensation of ₹4,44,782/together with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment.

¶7

The case of the appellant, in short, is that on 23.01.2011, he was proceeding towards his house in a bicycle, but when he reached Dukli bypass, one Maruti Van bearing registration No.TR-01-M-0504 hit him which resulted in grievous multiple injuries on the vital parts of his body. He was then taken to G.B. Hospital by the local people and was ultimately referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata on

¶8

MAC APP. NO.81/2013

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

24.01.2011. He was also given treatment at Medica Superspeciality Hospital where he was treated up to 08.02.2011 and got discharged on 09.02.2011. According to the appellant, he underwent operation on his right hand and after 3(three) days. He was again admitted to the same hospital at Neurological Department (Mind) and was ultimately discharged therefrom on 17.02.2011. The case of the appellant is that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle (Maruti Van). He was said to be 42 years at the time of the accident and was carrying on the profession of head mason with a monthly income of ₹12,000/- per month. He claimed that he spent a good amount for his treatment. He, therefore, filed the claim petition for payment of compensation.

¶11

The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company contested the claim petition and filed their respective written statements. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment.

¶12

Three-fold contention is made by Mr. S.B. Debnath, the learned counsel for the appellant in attacking the impugned judgment, namely, (i) the Tribunal did not award any amount for the expenditure incurred by the appellant for his attendant, which is illegal; (ii) the income of the appellant as assessed by the Tribunal at ₹6,000/- is on the low side, which should be assessed at ₹12,000/- per month, and (iii) a sum of ₹20,000/- awarded for pain and sufferings is also too low. He,

¶13

MAC APP. NO.81/2013

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

therefore, submits that the awarded amount should be considerably enhanced by taking into account the aforesaid factors.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. P. Gautam, the learned counsel for the insurer, submits that the compensation was passed by the Tribunal after duly considering all the relevant facts, and no serious infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant against the impugned judgment. He, therefore, submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and have also given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner as a mason could easily earn ₹200/- per day at the time of the accident inasmuch as the appellant could not prove that his income was actually ₹12,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The Tribunal after taking into account the disability certificate issued by the District Disability Board has also correctly held that the disability of the appellant was to the extent of 40% and was entitled to (₹6,000/- x 12 x 5) x 40%= ₹1,44,000/- as loss of his future income. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with this finding of the Tribunal to this extent. However, the amount awarded for the pain and sufferings of the appellant to the extent of ₹20,000/- does not

¶18

MAC APP. NO.81/2013

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

appear to be appropriate. Considering the nature of the accident and the injuries sustained by him, even though not of a permanent nature, the Tribunal ought to have awarded ₹50,000/-, and not ₹20,000/- for pains and sufferings. This, therefore, calls for the limited interference of this Court.

¶21

Consequently, the appellant is entitled to ₹50,000/- for pains and sufferings. The total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is [₹1,73,362/- + ₹51,420/- + ₹20,000/- (for fooding, lodging and conveyance charges) + ₹36,000/- + ₹1,44,000/- + ₹50,000/- (pain and sufferings)] =₹4,74,782/- (rupees four lakh seventy four thousand seven hundred and eighty two).

¶22

For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal partly succeeds. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit ₹4,74,782/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Needless to say, any amount already deposited or paid to the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.

¶23

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

Pulak

¶26

MAC APP. NO.81/2013

¶27

Page 4 of 4

Dilip Saha v. Aparna Talapatra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Saha v. Aparna Talapatra and Another

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

Sukhamoy Paul Vs State of Tripura and 2 Ors.

Surjya Kr. Deb Vs Dulal Deb and Ors.

Mani Roy Vs Raj Kr. Gour and Ors.

Rakesh Boro Vs the State of Tripura

Asian Oilfield Services Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Abdul Haque and Ors. Vs Md. Almach Miah @ Ali and Ors.