Tripura High Court
High Court Of Tripura vs Sri Dipak Das on 30 June, 2021
Page - 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App No. 31/2020
Sri Prabash Das ,
Son of late Nitai Chandra Das,
R/o. Kumarghat, Ambedkar Nagar,
P.S-Kumarghat, District-Unakoti, Tripura.
............... Appellant-Claimant Petitioner.
Versus
1. Sri Dipak Das,
Son of Dilip Das, R/o. Village-Ashram Palli,
Kumarghat near Krishna Kali Ashram,
P.S-Kumarghat,District-Unakoti, Tripura.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-02-B_2866).
2. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Hariganga Basak Road, Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-02-B-2866).
............... Respondent(s).
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Acharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 8th March, 2021.
Date of Judgment & Order : 30th June, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award
dated 6.5.2020 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1,
Agartala, West Tripura in case No. TS(MAC) 27 of 2017 awarding a sum
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 2 of 7
of compensation of an amount of Rs.15,56,000/- along with 6% annual
interest on the said amount to the claimant appellant who suffered from
60% disability from a road traffic accident which occurred on
28.07.2016.
[2] Factual background of the case is as under:
Twenty-five years old claimant Prabash Das, a mason by
occupation was travelling in the offending vehicle bearing registration No.
TR-02B-2866 from Asrampalli to Tasanta Road in Manu on 28.07.2016 at
about 9.30 am. On the way, he slipped from the speeding vehicle as a
result of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Injured claimant
was immediately taken to RGM Hospital at Kailashahar in critical condition
from where he was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala. After
few days of treatment as an indoor patient he was discharged from the
hospital. Thereafter, he visited Silchar Medical College Hospital several
times for better treatment. His father, Nitai Das lodged a written FIR with
the Officer-in-charge of Kumarghat police station day after the occurrence
accusing the driver of the said vehicle of rash and negligent driving and
based on his FIR Manu P.S Case No.2016MNU028 under Sections 279,
338 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was carried
out by Alauddin Majumder, Sub-Inspector of Police. After conducting the
whole investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet
against accused Dipak Das, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle for
having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 201
IPC and under Section 187 read with Section 134 M.V. Act.
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 3 of 7
[3] The injured claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1 at
Agartala claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.78,97,000/-.
[4] Notice was issued to the owner-cum-driver of the offending
vehicle and the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Agartala who were impleaded as respondents. They appeared and filed
written objections. In his written objection, the owner-cum- driver of the
said vehicle pleaded that his vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (respondent No.2) and the insurance policy was in
operation on the date of occurrence. It was also pleaded by him that he
was possessing valid driving license and his vehicle was also duly
registered. All other documents including permit were also in operation.
He, therefore, claimed that liability to pay compensation lied with the
insurance company.
[5] On behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent
No.2) it was pleaded that claim of the petitioner was exorbitant and its
liability to pay compensation was subject to production of a valid
insurance policy, valid driving license of the driver of the vehicle, its
registration certificate and other necessary documents.
[6] Claimant petitioner led the evidence of three PWs including
the Medical Officer who certified his disability as a Member of the District
Disability Medical Board. Besides adducing the oral testimony of the
witnesses, petitioner relied on as many as 13 documents. Respondent
No.1 also got his oral statement recorded at the Tribunal and relied on his
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 4 of 7
driving license, the registration certificate of his vehicle, its fitness
certificate and the insurance policy which were marked as Exbts. A,B,C
and D respectively.
[7] Having relied on the said evidence, the Tribunal quantified
the compensation at Rs.15,56,000/- and awarded the said compensation
to the claimant along with 6% interest on the said amount from the date
of presentation of the petition at the Tribunal till the date of realization.
For quantifying the compensation, the Tribunal guessed the daily income
of the claimant at Rs.300/- per day and worked out his monthly income
at Rs. (300 x 25) = 7,500/-. Thereafter, Tribunal added 40% of the said
amount (Rs.3000/-) towards future prospect of the claimant in terms of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vrs. Pranay Sethi and Others; reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 and monthly income of the claimant was worked out at Rs. (7500 +
3000) = 10,500/- and as such the annual income of the claimant came to
be Rs.(10,500x 12)= 1,26,000/- which was multiplied by the
multiplier of 18 in terms of the table formulated in the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Other Vrs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another; reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 and assessed
the loss of future income of the claimant at Rs.22,68,000/-. Since the
claimant suffered from 60% disability, his loss of future income was
worked out at Rs. (22,68,000 x 60)= 13,60,800. Thereafter, an amount
of Rs.30,000/- was added by the Tribunal for his actual loss of income as
a result of his confinement in hospital and home and after calculating the
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 5 of 7
other expenses borne by him and other losses suffered by him, the
Tribunal quantified the compensation as under:
Sl. Amount
Heads
No.
01. For loss of future income Rs.13,60,800/-
02. For loss of actual income Rs. 30,000/-
03. For medicines Rs. 29,000/-
04. For transportation charges Rs. 10,000/-
05. For attendant charges Rs. 26,000/-
06. For pain and agony Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total : Rs.15,55,800/-
Rounded off to Rs.15,56,000/-
[8] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award of the
Tribunal, claimant petitioner being appellant has filed this appeal
challenging the said award, mainly on the following grounds:
(i) Assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal is
not fair and just. Particularly, for his treatment in Silchar
Medical College outside the State, the claimant spent a higher
amount which was not taken into consideration by the
Tribunal.
(ii) Tribunal did not consider the fact that as per the
disability certificate the claimant suffered from paralysis in
both of his legs and completely lost his capacity to earn as a
mason. Considering the extent of disability and the occupation
of the claimant, the Tribunal should have taken it as 100%
functional disability and allowed compensation accordingly.
(iii) The Tribunal did not also consider the fact that the
attendants who accompanied the claimant to various hospitals
outside the State also incurred higher expenses for this
purpose.
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 6 of 7
[9] In the course of her arguments, Ms. S. Acharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the claimant has relied on the decision dated 6 th
November, 2017 of the Apex Court in Ankur Kapoor Vrs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.17998 of 2017) in which
Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,60,000/- to the claimant along with 9% interest
for 50% disability which was raised by the High Court to an amount of
Rs.8,80,000/- with interest and the Apex Court raised the amount to
Rs.22,00,000/- with uniform rate of interest at 8% per annum from the
date of presentation of the claim. Counsel argues that in the given case,
the appellant suffered from 60% disability and in view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in Ankur Kapoor(supra), he would be entitled to higher
amount of compensation. In the said case, the Apex Court found that the
injured appellant lost whole strength and flexibility of his right arm for
which he was unable to lift any weight and unable to raise the arm
beyond the level of 90 degree and as a result, the appellant who was a
driver by occupation was completely unable to drive a vehicle as his arm
was not as strong as it was before the accident. In such circumstances,
the Apex Court made a twofold enhancement of the compensation which
is completely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the
case before us, the District Disability Medical Board vide certificate
dated 09.02.2017 (Exbt.9) has certified that the claimant appellant
suffered from 60% disability, as a result of the accident and paraparesis
was diagnosed in both of his legs. Dr. Abhishek Majumder who issued the
certificate testified at the Tribunal as PW-2 and stated that physical
disability of the appellant would certainly affect his ability to work as a
MAC App. No.31/2020.
Page - 7 of 7
mason. There is no evidence to suggest that the claimant became
completely unable to pursue his occupation.
[10] In these circumstances, the award assessed by the Tribunal
appears to be just and reasonable and as such, I find no reason to
interfere with the said award. Resultantly, the appal stands dismissed.
The insurance company (respondent No.2) is directed to deposit the
whole amount of compensation at the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from today.
[11] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Send down the L.C record.
JUDGE
Dipankar
MAC App. No.31/2020.
