Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bodhan Bhalla vs The New India Assurance Company ... on 10 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
F.M.A 2353 of 2005
Bodhan Bhalla
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
For the Claimant/Appellant :Mr. Krishanu Banik, Advocate
For the Insurance Company/ :Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, Advocate
Respondent no. 1
Heard on : February 02, 2023
Judgment on : February 10, 2023
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Katwa, District
Burdwan in connection with MAC case no. 31/90 of 2002 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, whereby Ld. Judge
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition.
2. The claim petition in connection with this appeal arose on
account of injury sustained by Bodhan Bhalla/ claimant, a man
of 35 years, in a motor accident by the involvement of trakker
bearing no. B. R. 23A/8969.
3. Specific case of the claimant/ injured is that on 07.05.2000 at
about 3.30 hours claimant sustained injury in a motor accident
by the involvement of one trakker no. B. R. 23A/8969 at Tilpara
Canel Bridge while the claimant was returning from Pathar
Chapri by the said trakker. After the accident he was admitted
in Suri Hospital for fracture of his leg. After the accident he
became handicapped and obtained disablement certificate to the
extent of 45%. At the time of accident he was a tailor by
profession. Accordingly, he claimed compensation to the tune of
Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest.
4. After the accident Mahammad Bazaar PS Case no. 47/2000
dated 13.05.2000 was started against the driver of the trakker
under Section 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code. During
investigation, it appears that all the occupants of trakker
sustained injury and one person namely Manjur Sekh died. It
also appears that at the time of accident the trakker was driving
with high speed and lost control and dashed one road side
pillar.
5. Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing a
written statement denying all contents of the claim petition
contending, inter alia, that claimant had not suffered any
permanent disability after the accident and the trakker no. B. R.
23A/8969 was not at all responsible for the injury sustained by
the claimant and accordingly claimant is not entitled to any
compensation as prayed for.
6. Claimant examined himself as PW-1, who testified that while he
was travelling by the said trakker accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving and he sustained injury on his leg.
Ultimately, he suffered permanent disability. He was treated in
Suri Hospital. In course of his evidence, certified copy of First
Information Report, charge sheet in respect of Mohammad
Bazar PS case no 47/2000 dated13.05.2002, seizure list ,
discharge certificate, documents showing treatment as OPD
patient, Insurance Policy & one handicapped certificate issued
by SD Hospital Rampurhat, Birbhum were admitted in evidence.
It is pertinent to mention here that no evidence was adduced on
behalf of Insurance Company.
7. After evaluating the evidence together with the documents, Ld.
Tribunal could not rely on the discharge certificate and
disability certificate and came to his findings that claimant was
not entitled to any compensation.
8. From the FIR and charge sheet, it is found that the accident
alleged in their claim petition took place and some occupants of
the trakker sustained injury. After scrutiny of the certified copy
of FIR, it is also found that some of the injured were admitted
into Suri Hospital and rest injured persons were discharged
after primary treatment.
9. On careful perusal of the discharge certificate, I find that period
of admission was written as 04.06.2000 to 21.06.2000.
Subsequently the date of admission dated 04.06.2000 was
penned through and 07.05.2000 was put in place of
04.06.2000. But, from the date of issue of the certificate has
been written as 04.06.2000. I fell to make me understand how
discharge certificated issued on 04.06.2000, while patient was
admitted till 21.06.2000. However, it is found from the OPD
tickets that he was treated in Suri Hospital for injury from
14.06.2003.
10. From the record, I find that one Sraban Kumar Ghosh,
Medical Officer attached Rampurhat Sub Divisional Hospital,
was examined as PW-2. It is seen that, he put signature as
orthopedic surgeon in the original handicapped certificate and
his signature as marked as exhibit 1. But, at the time of giving
evidence, Dr. Sraban Kumar Ghosh introduced himself as
Medical Officer not as orthopedic surgeon. From the evidence of
doctor, it appears that age of the patient in the original
certificate was forged, not only that one attested copy of the
disability certificate, kept in the record, shows the age of the
patient as 30 years. That too the xerox copy of the said
handicapped certificate showing 30 years of age has been
attested by the Superintendent of the Hospital. And to add to
that, I find that the disability certificate bears the signature of
one Md. Sabin, who signed for the claimant Bodhan Bhalla.
11. From the entire record, I do not find any treatment sheet from
the record for the period from 07.05.2000 to 21.06.2000 as
indoor patient. Whereas, from the two OPD tickets, I find that
claimant visited hospital as outdoor patient on 14.06.2003 i.e.
after three years of alleged accident. Thereby, claimant could
not produce any cogent evidence showing proximity between the
alleged accident and his treatment at the Suri hospital.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am unable to rely either
on the discharge certificate or on the disability certificate.
13. In the premises set forth above, I find hardly any scope to
interfere with the order of dismissal of the claim petition passed
in the judgement dated 14.07.2005 in connection with MAC
Case No. 31 of 2008/ 90 of 2008 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
14. In result appeal being no. 2353 of 2005 stand dismissed.
15. Let the records of Tribunal along with copy of the judgement
be transmitted back immediately.
16. Pending applications, if there be any, stand disposed of.
17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]
