Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rafikul Islam @ Rafick Sk vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 16 May, 2023
04 16.05.
Ct 2023 FMAT 8 of 2011
273 With
rup IA NO: CAN 1 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 3902 of 2011)
CAN 2 of 2023
Rafikul Islam @ Rafick Sk.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy,
... For the appellant.
Mr. Sanjoy Paul
... For the Insurance Company/
respondents.
CAN 1 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 3902 of 2011)
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
parties to this appeal are present.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted that this application has been
filed for condonation of delay of 201 days in filing
appeal.
Heard both sides.
Considering the delay explained in the petition, the
prayer for condonation of delay is allowed.
The office is to register the appeal accordingly, if
otherwise in proper form.
Accordingly CAN 1 of 2011 (Old No. CAN 3902 of
2011) stands disposed of.
FMAT 8 of 2011
This appeal is directed against the judgment
passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (District
Judge Nadia) in connection with Motor Accident Claim
Case No. 113 of 2007, whereby learned Tribunal
disposed of the claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.3,
76,806/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
The application under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was filed by the injured Rafijul Islam alias
Rafik Sheikh, who sustained injury in an accident on
05.01.2007 at about 5.30 hours while one lorry bearing
No. WB-23A/4711 proceeding through NH-34 towards
Berhampore with high speed without blowing any horn
lost its control and dashed the victim. Injured was
taken to Berhampore N.G. Hospital and thereafter
Bellona Nurshing Home & Diagnostic Centre, Calcutta
for treatment. Therefore, the claim application has been
filed against the owner and insured of the vehicle with a
prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Oriental Insurance Company limited
contested the petition by filing written objection and
denying all averments of the claim petition contending,
inter alia, that claimant is not entitled to get
compensation as prayed for.
However, in course of trial claimant/injured
himself examined as PW-1, who corroborated all
contents of the claim petition. One Tarun Kumar
Sarkar, a Group-D employee of Berhampore General
Hospital, was examined as PW-2 to prove the discharge
certificate in respect of injured who was admitted at
Bellona Nurshing Home & Diagnostic Centre, Calcutta
and he also proved the cost of treatment. One Nandalal
Giri an Assistant Manager of Bellona Nursing Home,
was examined as PW-3. He also proved discharged
certificate and expenses for treatment. One Mahadeb
Biswas, Assistant Computer attached to Nadia District
Hospital was examined as PW-4, who proved the original
disability certificate which was marked as Exhibit-7.
One Dr. Anupam Samanta, Medical Officer-cum-
Orthopedic Surgon attached to Sub-Divisional Hospital,
Kharagpur, Paschim Midnapore was examined as PW-5
who proved the disability suffered by the injured. One
Bakul Mondal, an eye witness to the accident, was
examined as PW-6, who testified that the accident took
place on 5.01.2007 at about 5.30 hours in the mourning
on NH-34 by the involvement of one lorry bearing No.
WB-23A/4711. He further testified that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said
vehicle.
In course of their evidence certified copy of FIR,
Insurance Policy, and disability certificate along with
other documents showing the treatment of the injured
were admitted in evidence.
After evaluation of evidence together with
documents learned Tribunal awarded sum of
Rs.3,76,806/- along with interest.
In this appeal the only issue raised is about
enhancement of the compensation.
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellant has submitted that monthly
income was assessed at Rs.2100/- per month only in
respect of the avocation stated in the claim petition. It
has been further submitted that learned Tribunal only
awarded sum of Rs.5,000/- toward pain an suffering
though this is a case of amputation of right leg.
Mr. Sanjoy Paul, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in his fairness,
has submitted that sum of Rs.5,000/- toward pain and
suffering is not at all justified.
The percentage of disability has not been disputed
by any of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the parties. Accidental injury suffered by the injured
has not been disputed in this appeal.
From the evidence and together with all
documents, I do not find any reason to discuss on the
issue further.
With regard to the income, I am of the opinion,
that monthly income of an able bodied person should be
3000/- per month and claimant is also entitled future
prospect of 40% of the income along with Rs.2,00,000/-
towards pain suffering in terms of amputation of right
leg.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances I propose
to reassess the compensation as follows:
Monthly Income ( 3000 x 12) = Rs.36,000/-
Add Future Prospects 40%
(36 years old self employed person) Rs. + 14,400/-
Rs.50,400/-
Loss of future annual income 80%
Considering 80% disability ______________
Rs.40,320/-
Multiplier (15) x 15
Rs. 6,04,800/-
Add Medical expenses + 49,246/-
Rs.6,54,046/-
Add pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/-
Rs. 8,54,046/-
Less awarded sum already - Rs. 3,76,806/-
Received
Balance Amount Rs. 4,77,240/-
Therefore, claimants is entitled to compensation to
the tune of Rs.8,54,046/- in all. Out of that amount, it
is informed, the claimant had already received the sum
of Rs. 3,76,806/- awarded by the Tribunal along with
interest.
Thereby, claimant is now entitled to get balance
amount of Rs. 4,77,240/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date (26.03.2007) of filing of the
claim application till the date of deposit thereof.
Accordingly, Oriental Insurance Company Limited
is directed to deposit the balance amount along with
interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from date.
Learned Tribunal is requested to disburse the
amount to the claimant on proper identification and
proof.
With the aforesaid observation FMAT 8 of 2011
stands disposed of. Pending applications, if there be
any, also stand disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as
possible upon compliance with the all necessary
formalities.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
