National Insurance Company ... vs Mohan Chandra Halder & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6968 Cal

    06
26.09.2022
Ct. No.237
    pg.
                         IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
                                  APPELLATE SIDE

                                  FMA 403 of 2008
                                         with
                      IA No. CAN 4 of 2009 (CAN 1433 of 2009)
                              (Application not in the file)

                        National Insurance Company Limited
                                        Vs.
                           Mohan Chandra Halder & Anr.

                      Mr. Krishanu Banik
                                 ... For the respondent/claimant

Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent/

claimant appears and submits that this appeal is pending

for a considerable period. On calls, none appears on behalf

of the appellant/Insurance Company.

Considering the pendency of this appeal since

2008, I find no option but to dispose of this appeal on

merit.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order passed on 29th September, 2004 by the learned 14th

Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

24-Parganas (South) in connection with MAC Case No.229

of 2004 whereby the learned Judge allowed compensation

to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.

The claim petition arose out of an application

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on

account of injury sustained by the claimant Mohan

Chandra Halder.

According to the claimant, on 24th April, 2001 at

about 19.00 hours while he was standing with his bicycle

on Budge Budge Trunk Road, suddenly one Damper

bearing registration no. AP 31T/2720 coming with high

speed dashed the claimant and as a result the claimant

sustained serious injuries on his person. He was removed

and admitted to ESI Hospital for a considerable period.

The OP-1 did not contest this case. The appellant/

Insurance Company contested the case by filing written

statement denying all materials and allegations in the

application and prayed for dismissal of the same.

In course of trial, four witnesses were examined,

namely, the claimant/injured himself as PW-1, Goutam

Show as PW-2 who claimed himself as an eyewitness to

the accident occurred on 24th April, 2001 at about 7 p.m.

on Budge Budge Tank Road at Baddyer Bandh More. Dr.

Prasanta Kumar Mondal was examined as PW-3 who

examined the injured and issued disability certificate

which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit-9 and one

Saikait Mallick as PW-4 to prove the employment and

remuneration of the claimant.

After considering all the evidence and documents

available on record, the learned Tribunal returned his

finding by way of granting compensation to the tune of

Rs.6,00,000/-.

From the Memorandum of Appeal, it is found that

on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company assailed

the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on

the ground of percentage of disability in view of voluntary

retirement of the claimant and also assailed the disability

certificate issued by Dr. Prasanta Kumar Mondal, PW-3.

After careful perusal of the judgment and award

passed by the learned Tribunal, I find that the learned

Tribunal scanned the entire evidence on record and came

to its final opinion.

From the evidence available on record together

with the police reports including the charge sheet (Ext.-2),

I do not find any reason to disbelieve the factum and

accident alleged in this case. So far as the disability is

concerned, PW-3 Dr. Prasanta Kumar Mondal specifically

stated that on 14th July, 2004, he examined claimant

Mohan Chandra Halder and he noted down all the history

and all sorts of examinations done in the hospital and

opined that the claimant suffered permanent disability to

the extent of 70% due to severe shortening of left thigh.

The disability certificate was marked as Ext.-9. That apart,

a good number of documents in the record including the x-

ray/injury report (Ext.-7), I find no reason to interfere with

the observation of the learned Tribunal with regard to the

disability of the claimant.

Exhibit-11 shows the employment and

remuneration of the claimant. In these circumstances,

voluntary retirement of the respondent/injured does not

make any difference to the claim application, rather,

voluntary retirement further supports disability of the

claimant.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find

any reason to interfere with the award passed by the

learned Tribunal. The judgment and award dated 29th

September, 2004 stands affirmed.

At this stage, learned advocate appearing on behalf

of the respondent/claimant submits that the claimant/

respondent has already withdrawn Rs.3,50,000/-

pursuant to the order passed on 2nd March, 2005.

Therefore, the respondent/claimant is entitled to the rest

amount with accrued interest.

The learned Registrar General will disburse the

rest amount with accrued interest to the

respondent/claimant on proper identification.

With the above observation, the appeal, being FMA

403 of 2008, stands disposed of.

All pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

Records of the learned Tribunal 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.)