Tripura High Court
Smt. Payeel Das vs Sri Sumit Kumar Sinha on 26 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP No.15 of 2024
Smt. Payeel Das
Wife of Sri Sukanta Das,
Resident of Dhaleswar, Azad Hind Road,
P.S. East Agartala, District: West Tripura
---- Appellant (s)
Versus
1. Sri Sumit Kumar Sinha,
Son of Smriti Ranjan Sinha,
Resident of Bhagaban Nagar, Kailashar,
P.S. Kailashahar, District: Unakoti Tripura,
(Owner of the Motor bike bearing
Registration No.TR-02-A-9592),
PIN:799 279
2. National Insurance Com. Ltd.,
Represented by it's Branch Manager,
Having it's Divisional Office at A.K. Road,
P.S. East Agartala, District: West Triprua,
(Insurer of the Motor bike bearing
Registration No.TR-02-A-9592)
---- Respondents (s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. B. Debnath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Purakayastha, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 24.07.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 26.07.2024
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard Learned counsel Mr. S. B. Debnath appearing
for the appellant and also heard Learned counsel Ms. R.
Purakayastha for the Insurance Company. None appeared
on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sumit Kumar Sinha,
being the owner of motor bike bearing Registration No.TR-
02-A-9592.
02. This present appeal is preferred challenging the
judgment and award dated 13.12.2023 delivered by
Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 166 of 2020
wherein the Learned Tribunal below awarded an amount of
Rs.2,39,100/- as compensation to the claimant-appellant
with 9% interest with effect from 20.11.2020 i.e. from the
date of filing the claim petition till realization.
03. At the time of hearing of argument Learned
counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that this present
appeal is preferred for enhancement of the award of the
compensation determined by the Learned Tribunal below.
According to him claimant-appellant was an Electrical
Engineer of a private company on the day of alleged
accident. On that relevant point of time her monthly income
was Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Learned Tribunal below
determined the monthly income of the appellant @
Rs.10,000/- per month which was too less. Learned counsel
further submitted that due to accident the appellant
sustained 20% disability and for that the Learned Tribunal
below ignoring the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court awarded compensation for future loss of
income only for a period of six months, for which according
to Learned counsel the interference of the court is required
and urged for allowing this appeal by setting aside the
judgment/award of the Learned Tribunal below and to
enhance the award.
04. On the other hand, Learned counsel Ms. R.
Purakayastha appearing for the Insurance Company
submitted that the Learned Tribunal below rightly and
reasonably delivered the judgment because before the
Tribunal the petitioner-appellant could not produce and
prove any income certificate of the appellant-petitioner
showing her monthly income @ Rs.20,000/-. So according
to Learned counsel Learned Tribunal below rightly
determined the amount of compensation and urged for
dismissal of this appeal upholding the judgment and award
of the Learned Tribunal below.
05. The appellant as petitioner filed one claim
petition before the MAC Claims Tribunal No.1, West Tripura,
Agartala which was numbered as T.S.(MAC) 166 of 2020.
The case of the appellant-petitioner in brief was that on
28.01.2019 at about 3 p.m. the petitioner along with her
father were proceeding towards her house at Dhaleswar
from Nabarupa varieties, A.K. Road as a pillion rider and on
seeing the red signal at Ganaraj Chowmuhani when they
stopped their scooty and waited for green signal that time
one Motor bike bearing No.TR-02-A-9592 coming in a rash
and negligent manner dashed against the back side of the
scooty of the father of the petitioner resulting which she
received serious injuries on vital parts of her body and
received fracture injuries on her left leg. Immediately after
the accident the father of the petitioner who was riding the
scooty with the help of local people shifted the victim to the
AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala and after giving preliminary
treatment she was taken at her home. In her claim petition
she also stated that due to unbearable pain further she was
taken to the ILS Hospital, Agartala on 31.01.2019 wherein
she got admitted as an indoor patient and was treated
therein w.e.f. 31.01.2019 to 04.02.2019. During the period
of her treatment a major operation was done on her left leg.
On this issue a police case was registered with the East
Agartala Police Station vide East Agartala P.S. Case No.65
of 2019 under Sections 279/338 of I.P.C. and after
completion of investigation the I.O. laid chargesheet against
the rider of the motor bike bearing No.TR-02-A-9592. It was
further case of the petitioner that as an Electrical Engineer
she was doing a private job having monthly income of
Rs.20,000/- and was 24 years old at the time of accident.
So the petitioner filed the claim petition. In obedience to the
notice issued the owner of the bike appeared by filing
written statement and denied the entire assertions of the
claimant-appellant. But the OP No.1 admitted that he is the
registered owner of the motor bike bearing No. TR-02-A-
9592 at the time of accident and it was further submitted
that at the time of accident the bike was duly covered under
insurance with the National Insurance Company Limited
covering the period with effect from 23.07.2018 to
22.07.2019 having a valid driving license of the motor bike
and as such, if any compensation is awarded that should be
borne by the insurer.
06. The OP No.2, i.e. the National Insurance
Company appeared and filed written statement denying the
assertions of the claimant-appellant and it was further
submitted that the claim petition is subjected to strict proof
by the petitioner. However, upon the pleadings of the
parties Learned Tribunal below determined the following
issues:
i) Had the claimant petitioner Smti Payeel Das sustained
injuries out of a road traffic accident occurred on
28.01.2019 at about 3.00 p.m. near Ganaraj Chowmuhani
traffic point within the territorial jurisdiction of East
Agartala Police Station?
ii) Was the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of the motor cycle bearing registration no.TR-02-A-
9592 by its rider?
iii) Is the claimant petitioner entitled to get
compensation as claimed for? If yes, then to what extent
and who shall be liable to pay the compensation money?
07. Before the Learned Tribunal the petitioner was
examined herself as PW.1 and submitted some documents
which were marked as Exbt.1 to Exbt.12. The OP No.1
examined as OPW1 and relied upon some documents which
were marked as Exbt.A to Exbt.C. Finally on conclusion of
proceeding the Learned Tribunal below allowed the claim
petition of the claimant-appellant. For the sake of
convenience, I would like to refer herein below the
operative portion of the judgment and award dated
13.12.2023 passed by the Learned Tribunal which is as
follows:
"It is, therefore, held that the claimant petitioner is
entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,39,100/- (Rupees
Two Lakh Thirty-nine Thousand One Hundred only) with
interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 20.11.2020
i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
actual payment as per Judgment dated 17.10.2022 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in CA No.7593.
The Opposite Party No.2 namely, National Insurance
Company Ltd. will pay the amount of compensation with
interest within 30 days from today in terms of Section
168(3) of M.V. Act, 1988.
Supply copy of this award free of cost to the
parties.
The claim petition stands disposed of on contest.
Enter the result in the relevant Register as well as
in the CIS."
08. I have heard arguments of both the sides and
gone through the record of the Learned Tribunal below
including the judgment. It is on record that to substantiate
the claim the claimant-appellant examined herself as PW-1
and tendered some documentary evidence which were
marked as exhibits. But surprisingly before the Learned
Tribunal below, the petitioner could not produce any income
certificate in support of her claim petition.
09. In course of hearing of argument Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was
engaged as an Electrical Engineer to a private company who
did not issue any income certificate on that relevant point of
time for which the same could not be submitted. Learned
counsel further submitted that considering the academic
qualification of the appellant being an Engineer Learned
Tribunal below ought to have determined the monthly
income of the appellant @ Rs.20,000/- per month because
in our state even a day labourer also earns more than six
thousand per month. But the Learned Tribunal below did not
consider the same. So Learned counsel prayed for
enhancement of the award.
10. After going through the award of the Learned
Tribunal below it appears that the Learned Tribunal below at
the time of determination of compensation determined the
monthly income of the appellant relying upon the
notification dated 04.08.2023 of this High Court as skilled
worker @ Rs.10,000/- per month. In this case, from the
evidence on record it appears that the contesting opposite
parties before the Tribunal did not dispute anything
regarding employment and status of the appellant as a
private Electrical Engineer. So, the determination of monthly
income in my considered opinion was not proper which in
my considered view should not be less than Rs.15,000/- per
month on that relevant point of time considering the
prevailing circumstances. Learned Tribunal below at the
time of determination of the compensation awarded
Rs.5,000/- towards cost of attendants, Rs.6,000/- towards
conveyance charges, Rs.700/- towards purchase of
medicine and as per bills of ILS Hospital awarded
Rs.95,358/- towards hospital charges, awarded Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings, awarded Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of income for a period of four months as she was
confined in the house for a considerable period. Since
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant at the time of
hearing of argument did not submit anything regarding
determination of other amounts at the time of
determination of compensation by the Tribunal save and
except monthly income of the appellant and also regarding
determination of compensation towards pain and sufferings.
11. So, this court after hearing both the sides is of
the considered view that the monthly income of the
appellant would be Rs.15,000/- per month instead of
Rs.10,000/- per month considering her status and position.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.15,000x4) is
awarded towards loss of income. A further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings in
place of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal below in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343 considering the age, nature of injury
and disability suffered by the appellant-claimant. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.7 observed as under:
"7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and
under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they
involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head
of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further
treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant
and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary
guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary.
What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of
the loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that
assessment in this case."
In addition to that as awarded by the Tribunal
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards cost of attendants,
Rs.6,000/- is awarded towards cost of conveyance charges,
Rs.700/- towards purchase of medicine, Rs.95,358/- is
awarded towards hospital charges for the treatment of
injuries, Rs.20,000/- is further awarded for loss of amenities
of life and towards future loss of income, the claimant
petitioner would get (20% of Rs.15,000/-)=Rs.3000 x 6 i.e.
18,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation after
modification comes to Rs.5000 + Rs.6,000 + Rs.700 +
Rs.95,358 + Rs.60,000 + Rs.1,00,000 + Rs.10,000 +
Rs.20,000 + Rs.18,000 =Rs.3, 15,058/- which the claimant
petitioner would be entitled to get from the Insurance
Company since the offending vehicle was duly insured with
the National Insurance Company on that relevant point of
time of accident.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is
partly allowed. The judgment and award delivered by the
MAC Tribunal, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in
connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC) 166 of 2020 is hereby
modified to the extent that the claimant-appellant would get
Rs.3, 15,058/- with 9% interest w.e.f 20.11.2020 i.e from
the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The
insurance company i.e. the OP No.2, i.e. the National
Insurance Company will pay the said amount with interest
within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment of
this court to the concerned MAC Tribunal. A copy of this
judgment be furnished free of cost to both the parties. The
appeal is thus disposed of to the extent as stated above.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this
judgment.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.07.31
11:45:02 +05'30'
Moumita
