[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager, The New India ... vs Gyandup Tshering Lepcha And Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC App. No.16 of 2025
Appellant : The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance
Company Limited
versus
Respondents : Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Dipayan Roy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Rahul Rathi and Ms. Rupal Agarwal, Advocates for the
Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sushant Subba and Mr. Nirmal Thapa, Advocates for the
Respondent No.4.
None present for the Respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 16-04-2026
Date of pronouncement : 16-04-2026
Judgment uploaded : 17-04-2026
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok,
Sikkim (hereinafter, the "MACT"), in MACT Case No.03 of 2022
(Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others vs. The Branch Manager, New
India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others), granted a total
compensation of ₹ 29,12,887/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twelve
thousand, eight hundred and eighty seven) only, with interest @
6% per annum, from the date of filing of the application (i.e., 01-
02-2022) until full realization.
2. The MACT had granted the compensation by concluding
inter alia that, the injuries sustained by the Claimant No.1
(Respondent No.1 herein), such as fracture of 5th rib and
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
dislocation of hip joint could be successfully treated. However,
fracture of vertebra may affect performance of his normal routine.
That, keeping in view the nature of injuries, it may not be possible
to say that the Claimant No.1 is fully disabled but it would be
reasonable to conclude that he was permanently disabled. The
disability was fixed at around 50% by the MACT.
3. The Appellant Insurance Company, is before this Court,
assailing the said Judgment and the quantum of compensation
granted, on grounds that no disability certificate was furnished by
the Claimants to enable the MACT to arrive at the finding of 50%
disability of the Claimant No.1. That, such conclusion has been
arrived at on the basis of surmises, sans substantiation by
evidence. The compensation claimed therefore cannot include loss
of income of the Claimant No.1 as in the absence of disability
certificate or other proof to establish that on account of the alleged
disability, he lost his ability to earn. Compensation also cannot be
granted under any of the heads computed by the MACT on the
failure of the Claimants to establish disability. The claim of ₹
2,67,887/- (Rupees two lakhs, sixty seven thousand, eight hundred
and eighty seven) only, was made by the Claimants on the basis of
medical bills and the expenses thereby incurred by the Claimant
No.1 on his medical treatment, however on computation of the bills
furnished before the MACT, the actual total amount is revealed to
be ₹ 1,14,147/- (Rupees one lakh, fourteen thousand, one hundred
and forty seven) only, and that would be the only compensation
that the Claimants are entitled to, hence the Judgment of the
MACT be modified to that extent.
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
4. Resisting the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel
for the Appellant, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3
submits that it has clearly been stated in the evidence-on-
affidavit of the Claimant's witness Mr. Asom Tshering Lepcha (who
is not a Claimant in the instant matter), that due to the accident,
his brother, Claimant No.1, had sustained grievous injuries [Bi-
lateral haemithorax following blunt injury over chest, bi-lateral with
multiple fracture injuries (sic.)] and dislocation of left hip joint and
various fractures as detailed in the medical certificates, X-ray
reports which are filed along with the claim petition, resulting in
him being bedridden for several months. That, the said witness
also testified that his brother is unable to stand in "supine manner"
(sic.) and the accident led him to become crippled as his ribs were
fractured. His left hip joint was dislocated and he is unable to
work, stand and in need of support, even for basic tasks like
attending the call of nature. That, he was also referred to various
Doctors at Kalimpong and Siliguri which establishes his condition of
50% disability. Hence, there is no error in the findings of the
Learned Trial Court and the compensation granted warrants no
interference.
5. The parties have been heard in extenso and all
pleadings, documents and evidence duly perused and considered
by me.
(i) This Court is now to determine whether the conclusion
arrived at by the MACT of 50% disability of Claimant No.1 is
correct and if not what consequences would follow.
(ii) While answering the question framed, the injuries
suffered by the victim, Claimant No.1 leading to his alleged
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
disability are to be examined. Exbt 13 (collectively) is the
discharge summary pertaining to the Claimant No.1 which records
the following findings;
"Form No.: AHNC/GEN/080
ANANDALOKE HOSPITAL & NEUROSCIENCES CENTRE
(A Unit of Anandaloke Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd.)
2ND MILE, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI-734001, PHONE: (0353) 2540980, 2544352
FAX: 0353-2544944, E-mail : [email protected], Visit us : www.anandaloke.com
DISCHARGE SUMMARY
IN EMERGENCY CALL ANANDALOKE HOSPITAL ON 0353-2540980/2544352
Name : GANDUP LEPCHA IP# :IP150037412
Gender/Age : M/24 Blood Group: MRN :MRN0081562
Telephone : +91 9609023503 Relative : S/O Lop Tshering Lepcha
Patient Category: General Location :4th_Floor-GEN_MALE-4F_GEN_002
Address : RUMBIK, PO+PS-SOMBARIA, DIST-W/SIKKIM S/SIKKIM SIKKIM INDIA
Admission Date : 14/10/2015 02:50 Discharge Date : 27/10/2015 10:55
Discharged By : Dr. A. K Sasmal, MS(ORTHO) Patient Condition : Stable
Discharge Reason : Routine Discharge
Admitting Consultant: Dr. A. K Sasmal, MS(ORTHO)
Final Diagnosis:
*B/L HAEMOPNEUMOTHORAX FOLLOWING BLUNT NUURY CHEST (B/L) WITH MULTIPLE INJURIES.
*DISLOCATION Lt. HIP JOINT.
History of Present Illness:
Patient presented with alleged h/o RTA on 13.10.15. at around 7.30 PM followed
by chest, back injury and multiple abrasions over whole body. No h/o DM & HTN.
Examination on Admission:
GCS: E4 V5 M6
Pulse: 88/ min ; BP: 90/80 mm Hg
Chest: B/L AE (+) ; Abdomen: Soft
Investigation:
X-Ray Chest (23.10.15) :
* Fracture of left 5th rib visible.
* Opacity in left basal region - lung contusion.
CT Scan of Thorax (16.10.15):
* Fracture of left sided 5th rib and left transverse process of D1 vertebra with
left hemithorax and collapse consolidation of left lung.
* Mild collection at pleural space with chest tube in situ.
Bedside USG screening of Whole Abdomen (14.10.15):
* Fatty changes in liver.
* Left sided mild pleural effusion.
X-Ray Chest AP Supine (15.10.15);
* Intercostal drain in situ on right.
* Fracture if left 5th rib visible.
* Hazy left lung field - effusion.
Blood (14.10.15):
* SGOT: 420 U/L, SGPT: 130 U/L.
Urine RE (14.10.15):
* Albumin: Present, trace, Blood: Present (+++), RBC : Plenty, Casts: Hyaline (+), granular (+).
Others - Enclosed
OT Note:
ICD Rt. Side done on 14.10.15. by Dr. Ranjan Paul Chowdhury, MS.
Closed reduction Lt. hip done under GA on 14.10.15, by Dr. A.K. Sasmal,MS (Ortho).
ICD (Lt. side) given on 17.10.15, by Dr. Ranjan Paul Chowdhury, MS.
Course & Management:
During hospital stay patient was managed surgically along with I.V fluid, antibiotics,
antiemetic, analgesic, PPI, blood transfusion (4 units „O‟ positive) & other supportive
measures. Post-operative recovery was uneventful. Case was also reviewed by Dr.
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
Ranjan Paul Chowdhury, MS. Now the patient is stable & is being discharged with the
following advice.
On discharge: GCS: E4 V5 M6.
Pulse: 74/min ; BP: 120/80 mmHg.
Medication-Advice on Discharge
1. Normal diet.
2. Tab Cefadrox 500 mg - 1 tab twice daily - 7 days
3. Tab Pan 40 mg - 1 tab twice daily before meal - 7 days
4. Tab Flexon- 1 tab thrice daily - 7 days
5. Tab Calpol 650 mg- 1 tab SOS if fever.
6. To continue Spirometry & stitch
removal after 10 days from both
sides of chest.
Follow Up
AT ORTHO OPD AFTER 7 DAYS / SOS.
Discharge Summary Prepared By Kalpana Pradhan
All relevant papers received by us.
(Sign. of Patient Party/Patient)
Signature of RMO/Dy. Director Sd/-
"
[emphasis supplied]
(iii) There is nothing in the discharge summary to indicate
that the Claimant was rendered disabled on account of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident, besides, it specifies that the
„recovery was uneventful‟, indicating that the recovery followed the
normal course. In other words, nothing untoward occurred during
the recovery of Claimant No.1, reinforcing the fact that no disability
was identified. As already pointed out by the Learned Counsel for
the Appellant, there is no disability certificate furnished by the
Appellant. The MACT while arriving at its finding of disability has
made a presumptive assessment based on surmises by recording
as follows;
"24. The medical papers (collectively marked
Exhibit-13) and more particularly, the discharge
summary dated 27.10.2015 issued by Anandaloke
Hospital, Siliguri would show that petitioner/claimant
no.1 had sustained the following injury: bilateral
haemopneumothorax following blunt injury chest
with multiple injuries and dislocation of left hip joint.
The discharge summary of 27.10.2015 would show
that apart from the above injuries, petitioner claimant
no.1 had "Fracture of left side 5th rib and left
transverse process of D1 vertebra with left
hemithorax and collapse consolidation of left lung.."
25. In normal course, the injuries sustained by
petitioner/ claimant no.1, such as fracture of 5th rib
and dislocation of hip joint could be successfully
treated. However, fracture of vertebra may affect
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
performance of his normal routine. Keeping in view
the nature of injuries, it may not be possible to say
that petitioner/claimant no.1 is fully disabled.
However, it would be reasonable to conclude that his
permanently disability is around 50%."
[emphasis supplied]
(iv) In my considered view, that the fracture of ribs would
render a person disabled, is an improbable circumstance,
consequently I cannot bring myself to be convinced by the
arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 that
a person would suffer 50% disability due to fractured ribs.
Regarding the issue of dislocation of hip joint it would mean that
the treatment would re-place the bone to the place of its
dislocation. It is not the Claimants case that the dislocation was
not corrected by treatment. There cannot be a conclusion of
disability as made by the MACT, merely on account of fracture of
D1 vertebra. The injury to the said vertebra and its consequences
have not been detailed by the Claimant No.1 nor his witness of the
Claimants or by the medical expert or by medical certificate. I
cannot help but notice that the witness has deposed that "........That
my brother is unable to stand in a supine manner and the accident
led him to be crippled .....". "Supine" as per the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary, South Asia Edition, Twelfth Edition 2011, is, "1 lying
face upwards. ▪ with the palm of the hand upwards. .....". When
"supine" means the above, obviously he would not be able to
„stand‟ in a "supine manner" as imagined by the witness. The
evidence of the witness is not only ludicrous on this facet but is
also self defeating.
(v) In such circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the MACT has not only erred in reaching a finding of 50%
disability sans disability certificate or medical certificate to fortify
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs. Gyandup Tshering Lepcha and Others
that the Claimant No.1 was rendered disabled, on account of the
accident but also erred totally in granting compensation of ₹
29,12,887/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, twelve thousand, eight
hundred and eighty seven) only, with interest @ 6% per
annum. All that the Claimant is entitled to is a sum of ₹ 1,14,147/-
(Rupees one lakh, fourteen thousand, one hundred and forty
seven) only, as the expenditure incurred by him for his
treatment.
6. The Judgment of the MACT being erroneous and the
Claimants not being entitled to the compensation calculated by the
MACT the Judgment as a consequence is set aside.
7. The amount of ₹ 1,14,147/- (Rupees one lakh, fourteen
thousand, one hundred and forty seven) only, shall be paid to the
Claimant-Respondent No.1 by the Appellant Company within one
month from today with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the
Claim Petition, till full realization, failing which, it shall pay simple
interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition, till full realisation.
8. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned MACT for
information, along with its records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
16-04-2026
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
