Gauhati High Court
Sri Gonesh Choudhury vs The Regional Manager And 2 Ors on 17 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010174702017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./141/2018
SRI GONESH CHOUDHURY
R/O VILL. CHOWK BAZAR, P.S. GOALPARA TOWN, DIST. GOALPARA,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 2 ORS,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY BONGAIGAON,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.O.AND DIST. BONGAIGAON (ASSAM)
2:MUSTT. SALEHA BEGUM
R/O VILL. HASILAPARA
P.O. GOALPARA TOWN
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN 783101
3:MD. ABDUL KABIL @ ABDUL MALIK
VILL. BHATIPARA
NATUN BASTI
P.O. GOALPARA-783101
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A J SAIKIA
Page No.# 2/4
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. A.R. Agarwala,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.J. Saikia,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing: 25.01.2023.
Date of Judgment: 17.03.2023.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as
well as Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the judgment and award dated 04.06.2016 passed by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in MAC
Case No.86/2009.
3. On 19.11.2008, Gonesh Choudhury was travelling from Goalpara to
Guwahati in a bus bearing Registration No.AS-18A-0347. The bus was
driven in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, it turned turtle. As a
result of the accident, Gonesh Choudhury sustained injuries. In fact, he
became 50% disabled because of the accident. The Medical Board
gave him the certificate to that effect.
4. When he filed a claim application before the Tribunal, his monthly
income was notionally held to be Rs.4,000/-. The reason for this decision
was that Gonesh Choudhury could not produce any documents in
Page No.# 3/4
support of his income or profession.
5. Though the Medical Board issued a certificate stating the disability of
the claimant to be 50%, the Trial Court without any explanation held the
disability to be 20% only.
6. Finally, on the aforesaid yardsticks, the Tribunal granted a
compensation of Rs.2,08,813/- only.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of
both sides.
8. Here, at this stage, so far as notional monthly income is concerned, I
have decided to agree with the Tribunal because there are no other
evidence to prove the monthly income of the appellant.
9. I find that without any explanation or reasoning, the Tribunal held the
disability of the petitioner to be 20% even though the medical evidence
clearly showed that the appellant sustained 50% disability.
10. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously applied
the multiplier to be 15 whereas considering his age, the multiplier should
have been 16 according to Sarla Verma's case, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121.
11. This Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal
deserves to be modified.
12. The modified calculation would be like this -
Monthly income Rs.4,000/-
Yearly income Rs.48,000/-
Page No.# 4/4
Disability 50%
Loss of earning due to disability -
Rs.4,000/- X 12 X 50% X 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-
Future prospect of 40% = Rs.1,92,000/-
Medical expenses = Rs.19,813/-
Incidental expenses = Rs.25,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering = Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.6,70,813/-
13. Therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to receive
Rs.6,70,813/-.
14. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment stands modified. The
Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.6,70,813/-.
The amount of compensation shall carry an interest of 6% per annum with
effect from 04.06.2016 i.e. the date when the judgment was passed by
the Tribunal.
15. The appeal is disposed of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
