Tripura High Court
Smt. Purnima Debbarma vs Smt. Mandira Rani Paul And Anr on 21 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP NO.68 OF 2023
Smt. Purnima Debbarma.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Mandira Rani Paul and anr.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Debnath, Advocate.
Mr. Rupak Nama, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Deb, Advocate.
CO(FA) NO.02 OF 2024
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Smti. Purnima Debbarma and anr.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Cross Objector(s): Mr. A.K. Deb, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 21.06.2024
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present appeal has been filed under Section 173(1)
of M.V. (Amendment) Act, 2019 for enhancement of the award dated
05.07.2023 in Case No.-T.S.(MAC)93 of 2006 passed by the Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala preferred by
the original claimant (hereinafter referred as 'appellant'). The
connected cross-appeal has been filed under Rule 22 of the CPC read
with Section 151 of CPC against the Memo of Appeal of the connected
appeal filed by the claimant appellant against the impugned award
herein. The title suit herein arose out of crime No. East P.S.129 of
2004 under Section 279/338 of IPC and.
2. Heard Mr. M Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant as well as Mr.A.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company.
3. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the learned Tribunal did not consider the aspect of the
future prospect of marriage of the injured, and also only Rs.50,000/-
was granted towards future medical expenses which is on the lower
side. Learned Counsel submits that due to the neurological problem
suffered out of the accident, the marriage life of the injured became
redundant.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Deb, learned counsel
appearing for the insurance Company submits that Rs.50,000/-
awarded to the victim by the learned Tribunal for future medical
expenses is without any evidence and the same needs to be set aside.
The rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal is 9%, per annum
which is excessive and needs to be reduced. Learned counsel further
contended that there was a delay from January 2010 to July 2013 and
the same was condoned and for the delay, the claimant is not entitled
to any interest.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
6. This Court is not satisfied with the argument of learned
counsel for the claimant that due to the neurological problem suffered
out of the accident, the marriage life of the injured became redundant
as because, no medical or documentary evidence has been placed on
record to prove the same. As such, this Court rejects the said
argument and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.
7. On the other hand this Court rejects the argument
advanced by Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal on account of future medical
expenses needs to set sides because the learned counsel has failed to
provide compelling evidence to support his this argument. However
the argument on the non-claiming of interest from 21.01.2010 to
05.07.2013 is agreed upon by the Court since the claimant himself
has made the submission in the cross-examination before the Tribunal
and also for the mistake committed by the claimant in the proceeding
of the matter by way of delay, the Insurance Company cannot be
penalized. This Court is also in agreement with the argument of the
learned counsel that interest of 9% per annum as granted by the
learned Tribunal while giving the award is excessive and the same
needs to be reduced. Accordingly, in terms of the norms followed by
this Court, the rate of interest per annum for the awarded amount is
reduced to 7.5% in terms of the general norms followed by this Court.
8. With the above observations and directions the Cross
Objection is allowed to the extent indicated above.
9. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within
1(one) month from today and on said deposit, the claimant is at
liberty to withdraw the same unconditionally as per procedure.
10. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.06.29
SINGHA 15:05:56 +05'30'
