Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
6 vs Akb Jarjis Biswas & Anr on 14 July, 2021
Ct.
No. 14.7 F.M.A.T. 133 of 2016
26 2021 ( Via Video Conference )
Monoranjan Biswas
6 Vs.
akb Jarjis Biswas & Anr.
Mr. Muktakesh Das
Ms. Sreemayi Roy ...For the Appellant/Claimant
Mr. Sanjay Paul ...For the Respondent/Insurance Co.
On the oral prayer of the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned. No serious objection has
been raised by Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents/Insurance Company.
The application for condonation of delay is
disposed of. The concerned Department is directed to trace
out the application and tag the same with this appeal.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated January 27, 2015 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
5th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in M.A.C Case No. 169 of
2009.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The
claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 for the injuries suffered by the appellant in a road
traffic accident occurred on 05.11.2008. The learned
Advocate for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned
Tribunal committed error in law while reducing the assessed
compensation from Rs.6,74,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- on the
ground that the claimant claimed Rs.5,00,000/- in the claim
application but fact remains that in the case of Nagappa -Vs-
Gurdayal Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is the duty of the Court to
pay just compensation after considering materials on record
upon the claimant irrespective of claim amount as mentioned
in the claim application.
The learned Tribunal also committed error in law
while not granting 10% additional amount towards future
prospect of the victim.
In turn the learned Advocate for the respondent
Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal also
committed error in law while assessing monthly income of
the victim Rs.5,000/- without any cogent evidence.
The learned Advocate for the respondent
Insurance Company further submits that the learned Tribunal
also committed error in law while assessing 85% permanent
disability by upholding disability certificate but fact remains
that as per schedule appended in Workmens' Compensation
Act actual percentage of disability shall be 60% since right
leg of the victim was amputated from below knee.
Be that as it may, considering the rival
submissions of the parties as well as decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the
compensation as assessed by the Tribunal below but only
modify the award to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- to
Rs.6,74,000/- considering the ratio as decided in the case of
Nagappa (Supra).
Learned Advocate for the appellant
acknowledges that his client has already received the entire
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest that has been
awarded by the Court below that has been paid by the
Insurance Company. Therefore, the differential amount
which comes to Rs.1,74,000/- together with 6% interest from
the date of claim application till the payment which shall be
paid to the victim by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. within
45 days of receipt of particulars of bank account of the
claimant to be supplied by his Counsel to the Counsel for the
Insurance Company.
It is made clear that the payments shall be made
by NEFT/ RTGS in the proportion as ordered by the Court
below.
With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is
disposed of. In view of disposal of this appeal, connected
application, if any, is also disposed of.
There shall be no further order as to costs.
LCR, if any, may be returned back to the court
below.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all
formalities, on priority basis.
( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
