Tripura High Court
For vs For on 23 March, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
MAC. App. No.16 of 2023
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
23/03/2023
Heard.
[2] This appeal has been filed under Section-173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 passed in T.S.
(MAC) No.128 of 2018 by the MAC Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.
[3] The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Admit the appeal.
ii. Call for the records from the court of learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Court No.1) West Tripura, Agartala.
iii. Issue notice upon the respondent-opposite parties.
AND
iv. After hearing both the parties may kindly set aside the impugned
judgment and award dated 21.12.2022 passed T.S. (MAC) No.128 of 2018
by the MAC Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.
AND
v. Pass such other order/orders and/or direction/directions as seem fit and
proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
[4] The fact of the case as alleged by the claimant-respondents is that
on 13.10.2016 at about 9.30am when the respondent-claimant reached at
Hapania near Hapania Mela Ground by riding his motor bike in a moderate
speed, at that time, the offending vehicle of the Postal Department bearing
registration No. TR-01-D-0540 (Tata-407) coming with very high speed, rashly
and negligently dashed his mother bike from its back side and as a result, he
sustained multiple fracture injuries on his right elbow, right hip and also
sustained bleeding injuries on other parts of the body.
[5] Thereafter the driver fled away with the side of the vehicle and
t5he local people shifted him to the Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM
Teaching Hospital, Hapania wherein, he got admitted as indoor patient and was
treated w.e.f. 13.10.2016 to 15.10.2016 and considering his serious condition
he was referred to the outside State for better treatment and he was taken to the
Fortis Hospital at Kolkata wherein he got admitted as an indoor patient and was
treated w.e.f. 16.10.2016 to 22.10.2016.
[6] Thereafter, he got admitted in the Tripura Medical College & Dr.
BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania as an indoor patient wherein the was also
treated w.e.f. 03.01.2017 to 04.01.2017 and again got admitted in the said
hospital and was treated w.e.f. 31.03.2017 to 04.04.2017. In total he was under
treatment for 17 days in different hospitals. Thereafter, he continued his
treatment by private doctors and by this way he incurred Rs.5,00,000/-.
Concerning the said accident a police case was registered at Amtali Police
Station vide Amtali P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016 under Sections-279/338 IPC
and Sections-184/187 of M.V. Act. Thus, he claimed compensation to the tune
of Rs.15,00,000/-.
[7] The learned Court below after hearing the parties and gone
through the material evidence on record, has allowed the application file under
Section-166 of the M.V. Act 1988 and held that the claimant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.5,49,700/- along with interest @7% per annum from the date of
filing of the case till the date of actual payment. It was further held that the OP
No.1 i.e. the appellant herein, being the owner of the said vehicle will pay the
awarded amount of compensation within 30 days from the date of passing of
the order.
[8] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said observation, the
appellant herein has preferred this present appeal.
[9] Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the respondent-claimant in his claim petition has
stated that he is a pensioner having his monthly pension of Rs.15,000/- but in
his examination in chief he stated that though he is a pensioner but he has a part
time business having a monthly income of Rs.22,000/- but no document is
submitted to prove the same even the pension payment order also. He has
further submitted that the claimant could not produce any documentary
evidence regarding his monthly income learned tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of income without any basis.
[10] The respondent could not produce any referral certificate from
the competent authority. The learned tribunal without any evidence on record
awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- for the cost fooding and lodging of 2 attendants
for 17 days. As such, the impugned judgment and order of compensation,
passed by the learned Court below is liable to be set aside.
[11] In view of above, and after hearing the argument of the learned
Deputy SGI it has been revealed that the monthly income of the respondent-
claimant has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.9,000/- per month by
the Court below. It is admitted fact that he is a pensioner having monthly
pension @ Rs.15,000/- and in his examination-in-chief he stated that though he
is a pensioner but he has a part time business having a monthly income of
Rs.22,000/- but no document is submitted to prove the same even the pension
payment order also. In view of above, I am of the opinion that during the year
2016 a day labour would easily earn Rs.300/- per day i.e. Rs.9,000/- per month.
However, no documentary evidence has been submitted in support of his case.
In the absence of filing any proof of income before the Court below, notional
income of Rs.9,000/- was fixed by the learned Tribunal. This Court in terms of
the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, reported in
(2011) 13 SCC 236 dated 08.09.2011 also considered that fixing notional
income @Rs.10,000/- per month is reasonable.
[12] In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view
that the order passed by the learned Court below needs no interference.
Since it is a beneficial legislation, it is settled principle of law and the
Apex Court in number of matters held that the awarded amount need not
be restricted to the amount i.e. claimed by the appellant, it can vary
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case either reducing the
claim or increasing the claim.
[13] With the above, observations, the present appeal filed by the
appellant, stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
A. Ghosh
