Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sasanka Das vs United India Insurance Company ... on 13 February, 2023
05
13.02.2023
Ct. No.237
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
FMA 837 of 2005
Sasanka Das
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Krishanu Banik
... For the appellants/claimants
Mr. M.P. Chakrabarty
Ms. Swrnali Biswas
Ms. Ratnadipa Karmakar
... For the respondent no.1/Insurance Co.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated on 20th May, 2005 passed by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional
District Judge, Contai, in connection with MAC Case
No.108 of 2000 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the
claim petition.
The claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by one Sasanka Das for
sustaining injury in a motor accident occurred on 20th
August, 2000 at about 3.00 p.m. at Contai-Midnapore
Road by the involvement of one Bus, bearing registration
no.WB-31/0433. According to the claimant/injured, on
that day he was travelling in the bus as passenger and the
said bus capsized due to rash and negligent driving. At the
time of accident, he was aged about 34 years having
income of Rs.4,000/- per month. After the accident,
Contain Police Station Case No.185 of 2000 dated 21st
August, 2000 under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian
Penal Code was started. That is why the claimant/injured
filed the claim petition with a prayer for compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim
petition but the United India Insurance Company Limited
contested the case by filing written statement denying all
material averments in the claim petition contending, inter
alia, that the claimant, being not a passenger of the bus, is
not entitled to any compensation, as prayed for.
To prove the case, claimant examined as many as
two witnesses, namely, claimant himself as PW-1 and one
Prafulla Kumar Jana was examined as PW-2. In course of
their evidence, certified copy of the First Information
Report, charge sheet, seizure list and discharge certificate
were filed and marked as Exhibit 1 to 4.
After analysing the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal came to its finding that the claimant could not
prove that he was a valid passenger of the bus and also
evidence of PW-2 cannot be taken into account who was
not a passenger of the bus and he could not produce the
bus ticket. However, the learned Tribunal did not believe
the evidence of either PW-1 or PW-2 with regard to the
injury sustained by the claimant and accordingly
dismissed the claim petition.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate, on behalf of
the appellant/claimant has submitted that the evidence of
PW-1 together with the discharge certificate (Ext.-4) proved
the factum of accidental injury sustained by the appellant
/claimant and he was treated in the Contai S.D. Hospital.
Though no disability certificate has been filed in this case
but Mr. Banik has relied on a case of North-West
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v.
Mallikarjun Sanganabasappa Shettar & Anr. reported in
2002 ACJ 215 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court granted
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in absence of
any disability certificate.
Mr. M.P. Chakrabarty, learned advocate, on behalf
of the respondent no.1/Insurance Company has submitted
that no disability certificate has been filed in this case so
compensation cannot be computed towards pecuniary
loss.
From the FIR, charge sheet and seizure list (Exts. 1
to 3), it appears that on 20th August, 2000 accident took
place by the involvement of one bus, bearing registration
no.WB-31/0433, and the accident happened due to rash
and negligent driving of the bus which capsized ultimately
and passengers sustained injury.
We should keep in our mind that in a case of
motor accident, appreciation of evidence cannot be
considered as evidence in civil and criminal cases in terms
of principle of beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance
of probability.
In our case, PW-1 has stated that he being a
passenger sustained injury on the alleged date of accident
and PW-2 has also stated in his evidence that passengers
of that bus sustained injuries and Sasanka Das, i.e., the
claimant of this case, was one of the passengers of the said
bus and he also sustained injuries. At the relevant point of
time, PW-2 was sitting in a shop which was also damaged
by that accident.
Such evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been further
substantiated by a certificate issued by the
Superintendent, Contain S.D. Hospital, Midnapore,
wherefrom it is seen that he was admitted in the hospital
on 20th August, 2000 with the history of R.T.A. on 20th
August, 2000 at about 15 hours and he sustained multiple
injuries and fracture over knee joint (right) and he was
discharged on risk bond on 22nd August, 2000.
It is true that the relevant doctor was not examined
in this case but overall evidence adduced on behalf of the
appellant/claimant together with the documents, I find no
reason to disbelieve the injury sustained by the appellant/
claimant in the accident happened on 20th August, 2000
by the involvement of a bus, bearing registration no.WB-
31/0433.
In spite of that, I am unable to hold any disability
on the person of the appellant/claimant in absence of any
document to that effect but considering the injury
sustained by him, I find it justified to award a
compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., on
19th September, 2000, till the deposit of the amount.
Accordingly, the respondent no.1/United India
Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition i.e., on 19th September, 2000, 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.
In the result, the judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal in MAC Case No.108 of 2000 stands set aside.
The appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the
compensation amount with interest.
The learned Registrar General is requested to
disburse the amount with interest to the appellant/
claimant on proper identification and proof.
With the above observations, the appeal, being
FMA 837 of 2005 is disposed of.
All pending applications, if there be any, 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.)
