Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sandhya Mondal vs The New India Assurance Company on 28 November, 2022
28.11.2022
KC(25)
F.M.A. 51 of 2012
Sandhya Mondal
-versus-
The New India Assurance Company
Limited and Ors.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal..........For the appellant.
Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee....For the respondent no. 1/
insurance company.
This is an appeal directed against the judgment
and award passed on 31st January, 2011 by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 14th Additional
District Judge, Alipore in M.A.C. Case No.82 of 2010.
The claim case arose on account of injuries
sustained by the victim on 1st April, 2006 by the
involvement of offending auto rickshaw bearing
registration No. WB 19B 3225 near Budge Budge. At
the relevant point of time due to rash and negligent
driving of the auto rickshaw it turned upside down near
Kayeth Beltala. As a result, the claimant sustained
fracture injury and she was shifted to Budge Budge
E.S.I. Hospital for treatment.
By this claim petition, the claimant claimed Rs.
5,00,000/- as compensation.
The insurance company contested the case by
filing written statement denying all averments in the
claim petition contending inter alia that the claimant is
not entitled to any compensation.
In course of trial, total six witnesses were
examined on behalf of the claimant.
P.W. 1, Clerk-in-charge of E.S.I. Hospital, Budge
Budge has stated nothing in connection with this case
excepting filing original documents.
P.W. 2 is the claimant herself who stated about
the manner of the accident and injury sustained by her.
She has stated at the relevant point of time she used to
earn Rs. 2,000/- per month and at the time of accident
she was aged about 26/27 years.
P.W. 3, claiming to be an eye witness to the
accident, has stated that at the relevant point of time
he was going along the place of occurrence by cycle. He
found one auto rickshaw was running on high speed
and it ultimately overturned. As a result, the
passengers of the auto rickshaw sustained injury.
P.W. 4, Medical Officer attached to Budge Budge
E.S.I. Hospital deposed about the long treatment of the
injured claimant and various documents were marked
as exhibits in course of his evidence.
P.W. 5, Manager, Fort Export (P) Limited came to
the court and proved the salary slip of the injured
claimant.
P.W. 6, Dr. S. J. Bhattacharya issued the
disability certificate.
Learned Tribunal after assessing entire evidence
on record came to his finding by promulgating an award
of Rs. 1,82,800/-.
In course of argument Mr. Jayanta Kumar
Mondal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
claimant has contended that learned Tribunal did not
consider future prospect and pain and sufferings of the
claimant for which Mr. Mondal has referred to evidence
of P.W. 4, Medical Officer attached to Budge Budge
E.S.I. Hospital. It is contended that learned Tribunal
should have considered the long treatment of the
injured claimant in the E.S.I. Hospital at Budge Budge
before assessing non-pecuniary loss. It has been further
contended that learned Tribunal did not consider also
the future prospect.
In this appeal only issue to be decided is as to
whether the learned Tribunal should have allowed more
compensation under the head of non-pecuniary loss
and whether the learned Tribunal should have
considered the future prospect to the extent of 40% of
income of the victim.
None of the learned advocates on behalf of the
parties to this appeal raised any issue regarding
accident on account of rash and negligent act of the
offending auto rickshaw or income of the injured
claimant.
In view of the age, as disclosed by the claimant
herself in her evidence that at the relevant point of time
she was 26/27 years of age and that is why multiplier
of '17' should be applied to assess compensation in
terms of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
That apart from the evidence it appears that the
claimant had to suffer a lot due to her treatment for a
considerable period at the E.S.I. Hospital and for that
reason her service was terminated.
Accordingly, I modify the compensation as
follows:
Monthly Income Rs. 2,000/-
Annual Income (Rs.2,000/- x 12) Rs. 24,000/-
Add 40% future prospect Rs. 9,600/-
Rs. 5,71,200/-
Multiplier by 17 (Rs.33,600 x 17)
Disability to the extent of 40% as per Rs. 2,28,480/-
order of the Tribunal (40% of Rs.
5,71,200)
Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total : Rs. 3,28,480/-
Less - Already received Rs. 1,82,000/-
Enhancement: Rs. 1,46,480/-
For the reasons, it is seen that the
appellant/claimant is entitled to the total compensation
to the tune of Rs.3,28,480/- . It is reported that the
appellant/claimant has already received Rs.1,82,000/-
from the learned Tribunal.
Thereby, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the
balance compensation amount of Rs.1,46,480/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the deposit of the amount.
The New India Assurance Company is directed to
deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,46,480/- along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the actual deposit of the amount
before the office of the learned Registrar General of this
Court, within six weeks from the date of this order.
The insurance company is directed to deposit the
amount with the office of the learned Registrar General
within the aforesaid time limit.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount to the appellant/claimant on
proper identification.
With the above observation, the appeal, being
FMA 51 of 2012 is disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, also
stand disposed of.
Records of the learned Tribunal along with a copy
of this order be transmitted back immediately.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.)
