Martuz Khan vs The United India Insurance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3275 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010026382020




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : MACApp./103/2020

         MARTUZ KHAN
         S/O. MANIK KHAN, VILL. GUMA, BAHARI, P.S. TARABARI, DIST. BARPETA,
         ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS
         REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH,
         GUWAHATI-05, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. (INSURER OF THE OFFENDING
         VEHICLE VIDE REGISTRATION NO. AS-01-AC-0334 BUS, BEARING POLICY
         NO.1301053115P107540129 VALID UPTO 06.11.2015)

         2:DIPJYOTI BORO

          S/O. LT. BAPURAM BORO
         VILL. SIMELABARI
          P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI
          DIST. KAMRUP (R)
         ASSAM. PIN-781381. (DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO.AS-01-AC-
         0334
          CITY BUS)

         3:DHIREN DAS

          S/O. BHAGAWAN CH. DAS
          VILL. PANDU
          SADILAPUR
          P.S. JALUKBARI
          DIST. KAMRUP (M)
          ASSAM
          PIN-781014 (OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO.AS-01-AC-0334
          CITY BUS
                                                                        Page No.# 2/5


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A T SARKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A J SAIKIA

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 30-08-2022

Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent United Insurance Company Limited.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is instituted against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2019 of the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 2582/2016, directing the respondent United Insurance Company Limited to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant-claimant. The appellant-claimant claims that on 06.09.2016, while he was proceeding towards his home at Katahbari, Garchuk from Jalukbari Chariali side riding on his motorcycle bearing No. AS-01-BW-6976, a City bus bearing No. AS-01-AC-0334 coming from Adabari side had knocked him down from the left side at about 8:35 p.m. As a result of the accident, he suffered injuries on his head, hands, legs, ribs etc. He was immediately taken to B.A. Saikia Memorial Nursing Home, Adabari and was subsequently admitted for better treatment at Naryana Super Speciality Hospital, Amingaon, on the same day and was discharged on 10.09.2016. In this respect, an FIR was also lodged resulting in Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 799/2016. The appellant claims that on being hospitalized for about five days, he had spent around Rs. 2,00,000/- but he could submit medical bills for an amount of Rs. 98,000/-. He also claims to be a Page No.# 3/5

businessman by profession and thereby, earned an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month and he has been running a fish business at Jalukbari Chariali since 18(eighteen) years.

3. The learned Tribunal while sifting through the evidence regarding the medical bills submitted by the appellant arrived at its conclusion that some of the money vouchers pertaining to the medical treatment were without any paid seal and without signature of any authorized person and accordingly, such medical vouchers were rejected. The learned Tribunal arrived at its conclusion that the acceptable medical vouchers amounted to Rs. 50,000/- (approximately) and accordingly, awarded the appellant-claimant a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

4. This appeal is instituted by the claimant on the ground that the requirement to pay compensation at least under two headings that is litigation cost and pain and suffering had not been paid to the claimant in the impugned award. The appellant also claims that all the medical bills ought to have been honoured by the learned Tribunal.

5. As regards the ground of the appellant that all the medical bills ought to have been honoured by the learned Tribunal, we required the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant to point out as to which acceptable money vouchers regarding treatment obtained by the appellant had not been honoured by the learned Tribunal. No such acceptable money vouchers could be pointed out.

6. As regards the compensation under the heading litigation cost, the appellant relies upon a pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735, wherein in paragraph 14 it had been held as extracted:

Page No.# 4/5

"14.Further, along with compensation under conventional heads, the appellant claimant is also entitled to the cost of litigation as per the legal principle laid down by this Court in Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha. Therefore, under this head, we find it just and proper to allow Rs 25,000."

7. A reading of the aforesaid extracted provision of the Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq (Supra) makes it discernible that by following the proposition laid down in the case of Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384, it would be just and proper to allow a litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- in case of an injury caused in a motor accident. Although in the case at hand in Syed Sadiq (Supra), the injuries were more grievous in nature leading to some kind of functional disability but the said difference cannot be a basis to arrive at a conclusion that the cost of litigation would be different in the case at hand where there is no functional disability as that of Syed Sadiq (Supra).

8. As regards pain and suffering, the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 in Syed Sadiq (Supra) had provided for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- in a case of functional disability where the monthly income was Rs. 6,500/- per month, and the claimant was a vegetable vendor.

9. Here, although the appellant claims his income to be Rs. 12,000/-, but no evidence as such is placed on record and the appellant in course of the hearing in the appeal claims to be a fish seller. We draw a comparison between a vegetable vendor and a fish seller and accordingly, as held by the Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq (Supra), we also accept that the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs. 6,500/-. The heading pain and suffering in a motor accident relates more to the time when the actual accident takes place where the victim would be in pain and also in a state of shock after the accident, although some element of pain and suffering can also be attributed if the disability suffered would be of functional or permanent in nature. In Syed Sadiq (Supra), the Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 60,000/- on the premises that there was some Page No.# 5/5

functional disability of the claimant therein. In the instant case, as there is no evidence on record regarding functional disability and the pain and suffering has to be related to the time when the actual accident took place, we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be just and proper in favour of the appellant-claimant towards the heading pain and suffering.

10. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and award dated 08.11.2019 of the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 2582/2016 and add an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, over and above the Rs. 50,000/- already awarded to the appellant on medical expenses. The Rs. 75,000/- awarded in the appeal be paid to the appellant along with interest from the date of the claim as provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, @ 6% from the date of claim till the date of payment.

Appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant