Tripura High Court
Sri Tapan Sutradhar vs Sri Dipankar Sarkar on 20 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
MAC. App. No.36 of 2023
1. Sri Tapan Sutradhar, son of late Narendra Sutradhar of Chandrapur
Colony No.1, Indiranagar, P.O. & P.S. R. K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati
District, Tripura.
..... Appellant
-V E R S U S-
1. Sri Dipankar Sarkar, son of Dhirendra Sarkar of Rajnagar, P.R. Bari,
P.O. & P.S. Belonia, South Tripura (Owner of TR-08-9231, Motor
Bike).
2. Sri Babul Das, son of Sri Narayan Das, of Jogendra Nagar,
Khudiram Pally, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura (Rider of TR-08-
9231).
3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,
Udaipur Branch, P.O.& P.S. R. K. Pur, District: Gomati Tripura,
(Insurer of TR-08-9231, Motor Bike).
.....Respondents.
B_E_F_O_R_E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Debnath, Advocate.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
Judgment and order dated 20th June, 2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
Heard Mr. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
also heard Mr. N. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] This appeal has been filed under Section-173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 from the judgment and award dated 21.01.2022 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.1, Gomati Judicial
District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC) No.23 of 2018 for enhancement of
compensation of the award from Rs.3,80,220/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.
[3] The claimant petitioner-appellant had filed an application under
Section-166 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 for payment of compensation
stating inter alia that on 15.01.2017 at about 07.30 p.m. when the appellant
along with his friend was walking towards his house through Agartala-Sabroom
National High Way near Chandrapur at that time suddenly the appellant was
dashed from his behind by a motor cycle No.TR-08-9231 which was being
driven rashly and negligently with excessive speed. As a result, the appellant
fell down on the road and received grievous injury on his spinal cord and all
over his body.
[4] The accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the
motor bike No. TR-08-9231 by its rider. At the time of accident, the appellant
was a stout and healthy man of 51 years and was a carpenter by profession and
his earning was Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to damage in the spinal cord in the
accident he became a disabled person and unable to continue his profession.
The appellant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the disability caused
to him due to the said accident. The Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Court No.1, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur by a Judgment and Award dated
21.01.2022 in TS (MAC) 23 of 2018 allowed the claim petition of the claimant
and directed the respondent No.3 to pay amounting to Rs.3,80,220/- to the
claimant appellant within two months from the date of judgment & award along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.
05.04.2018 till realization of same.
[5] On receipt of the notice, the owner and rider of the motor cycle,
appeared and contested the case by filing joint written statement denying the
accident, injuries, expenditure incurred towards the treatment, age and
occupation of the petitioner, the appellant herein and any sort of rash and
negligent driving of said offending vehicle. However, it was asserted that at the
time of accident the offending motor cycle was ridden by the rider having valid
driving licence and the bike was also duly insured with National Insurance
Company Limited covering the period of accident.
[6] In response to the notice, the insurer of the offending motor cycle,
also appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. In their written
statement they also formally denied the accident, injuries, age, occupation,
monthly income of the petitioner and any sort of rash and negligent driving of
offending motor cycle. The insurance company claims strict proof of the
insurance coverage of the alleged offending vehicle.
[7] The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and on perusal of
the material evidence on record has observed as under:
"22. In view of the above findings it is ordered that the petitioner, Sri
Tapan Sutradhar is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,80,220/- (Rupees
three Lac Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Twenty) only in total. The O.P.
No.3, National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of vehicle No.TR-08-
9231 (Motor Cycle) is directed to make the payment of compensation
within two months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum
thereupon from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. from 05.04.2018 till
payment/realization of the same. Liberty is given to the National Insurance
Company (OP No.3) to recover the amount of compensation from the
owner of the vehicle Dipankar Sarkar(OP 1)."
[8] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 21.01.2022 passed in T.S. (MAC) 23 of 2018, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
[9] Mr. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the learned tribunal failed to consider that the appellant became
permanently disabled and the extent of disability is 40% as determined by the
District Disability Board, Gomati District, Udaipur by issuing a certificate and
also failed to consider that the appellant has become permanently crippled and
bed ridden, the extent of physical disability, the learned tribunal ought to have
hale that 40% disability resulted in 100% functional disability.
[10] The learned tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the
future medical treatment including the cost of medicine, charge of the
attendants and physiotherapist which the appellant is required to pay
throughout the rest of life, while arriving at just and proper compensation. The
pecuniary head for loss of income sustained by the appellant from the date of
accident during the period of treatment has also not been appreciated by the
tribunal below.
[11] The learned tribunal failed to consider that because of the
accident the appellant has suffered shortening his expected longevity, the
learned tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for the adverse impact of
the accident on the life expectancy of the appellant. The appellant is still under
treatment which is evident from the medical prescriptions issued by Doctors but
nothing has been compensated onto this head.
[12] It has been further submitted that the learned ttribunal failed to
consider that the claimant appellant was a carpenter by profession and due to
the said accident, he became 40% disabled which is evident from the Disability
Certificate issued by the competent authority and because of the said accident
his legs has become shorter in length and as a result he is unable to perform his
duties as a carpenter. The learned tribunal did not consider that the appellant is
unable to earn his livelihood due to said accident and also not awarded any
amount of compensation towards future loss of income.
[13] The appellant has become 40% disabled and at the time of the
said accident he was only 51 years old and due to the said accident, he will
suffer pain and mental agony for his entire remaining life but the learned
tribunal awarded only Rs.80,000/- towards pain and suffering which is
absolutely unjust and insufficient. During treatment, the appellant also incurred
transportation expenses and only Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation
expenditure was awarded which is absolutely unjust and insufficient.
[14] In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
being a carpenter, according to the guideline framed dated 4th August,
2023 a skilled labour must earn Rs.12,000/- per month but the learned
tribunal below has assessed monthly income Rs.9,000/- which is
obviously in a lower side. Accordingly, his income if computed, would be
Rs.12,000 x 40% x 12 x 5 = 2,88,000/-. Accordingly, towards loss of
income amount Rs.2,88,000/- would come instead of Rs.2,16,000/- as
awarded by the tribunal below. However, the rest of the award as
compensated by the tribunal shall remain unaltered. Towards non-
pecuniary damages on account of pain and suffering, the appellant has
suffered burst fracture L3 in the vertebra which is a grievous in nature and
due to this; his physical disability to the extent of 40% was caused. Thus,
on this count Rs.80,000/- was awarded. Towards air journey he has
submitted air ticket of Rs.5,212/-. Towards medical treatment Rs.40,000/-
was awarded. For attendants Rs.19,000/- was given and for transportation
cost including the cost of visiting doctors an amount of Rs.20,000 was
awarded. Therefore, in total, the appellant is entitled to Rs.4,52,212/-
instead of Rs.3,80,220/- as awarded by the learned tribunal below.
[15] This Court in all matters is fixing 7.5% interest and to
maintain uniformity while comparing the bank rate of interest which is
also much less. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled
compensation as indicated above along with 7.5% interest per annum
instead of 6% interest as awarded by the learned tribunal below, with
effect from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of
actual payment. Insofar as the pay and recovery, this Court also follows
the principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamanna and
Another v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and Another, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650. The awarded
amount shall be deposited by the insurance company within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on such
deposit; the appellant is at liberty to withdraw the same unconditionally.
[16] In view of above discussion and observation, the present
appeal stands partly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed. Draw the decree accordingly and
thereafter, send down the LCRs forthwith.
T. Amarnath Goud, J
A.Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed by
ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.07.01
15:47:12 +05'30'
