Tripura High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smti. Nilima Mukherjee And Others on 3 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
MAC. App. No.19 of 2025
1. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
..... Appellant
-V E R S U S-
1. Smti. Nilima Mukherjee and Others.
.....Respondents.
B_E_F_O_R_E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
Judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
None appears for the respondents.
[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2024 passed by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura,
Agartala in connection with case No.T.S. (MAC) 132 of 2016.
[3] The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit this memo of appeal;
(ii) Issue notice upon the respondents;
(iii) Call for the case records vide case no. T.S. (MAC) 132/2016 from the
court of Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri D. Das, Court
no.4 West Tripura, Agartala
(iv) To stay the operation of the judgment and award dated 30/11/2024
passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri D.
Das Court no.4, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case no. T.S.
(MAC) 132/2016 till disposal of the present appeal;
(v) After hearing the parties, Your Lordship would be kind enough to set
aside/quashed the impugned judgment and award dated 30/11/2024 passed
by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri D. Das
Court no.4, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case No.
T.S.(MAC) 132 of 2016."
[4] As per the impugned judgment, the brief fact of the case is that on
17.06.2015 at about 03.30 p.m. the injured person was returning home from
Malaynagar by his motor cycle bearing registration No. TR-01-T-5519 through
Khayepur-Amtali road and when he reached near Netaji Colony under Srinagar
P.S., the offending vehicle bearing registration No. TR-02-M-1551 in rash and
negligent manner dashed his motor bike and this resulted in grievous injuries to
him. Just after the accident Gouranga Mukherjee was taken to AGMC & GBP
Hospital, Agartala and on 28.06.2015 he was referred to ILS hospital, Agartala
where he was treated upto 17.07.2015 and even after discharge from hospital,
his treatment has been continuing. After filing the claim petition, notices were
issued against the owner and insurer i.e. present appellant as opposite parties.
[5] After receiving the notice from the learned tribunal, the present
appellant appeared before the learned tribunal and filed written statement
taking statutory defence and on the basis of plaint and documents the learned
tribunal framed the issues. The victim Gouranga Mkuharjee was not examined
and also did not appear before the learned Court below, though he is alive and
his disability was only 77% percent, but his name was not inserted in the claim
petition. After hearing both the parties, the learned Court below delivered the
judgment on 30.11.2024 with an award of Rs.37,37,000/-(Rupees Thirty Seven
Lakh Thirty Seven thousand) only with 8% simple interest
[6] Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
before this Court for redress.
[7] The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and on perusal of
the material evidence on record has observed as under:
"20. In the result, the application under section 166 of the M.V. Act,
1988 filed on behalf of the injured Gouranga Mukherjee is allowed on
contest with an award of Rs. 37,37,000/- (Rupees Thirty- Seven Lakh
Thrity-Seven Thousand) only with 8% simple interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition i.e., from 01.07.2016, except for the period
from 30.06.2018 to 04.07.2019 when the case remained dismissed for
default.
21. The OP Insurance company shall pay the compensation amount
as determined herein above. Payment shall be made within a period of 30
(thirty) days from the date of this award in terms of Section 168(3) of the
Act.
22. To ensure protection of the compensation the following direction is
made for disbursement of the compensation:
a) An amount of Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only shall be directly
paid to the injured by transfer to his individual bank account directly and
the rest amount shall be invested in his name in fixed deposit for a period
of 5 years in any nationalized bank, preferably the UCO Bank, District
Court Branch, Agartala with auto renewal facility.
b) No loan or advance or pre-mature withdrawal shall be allowed from
said Fixed Deposit without prior sanction of this Tribunal. The interest
accrued on the fixed deposit shall be directly transferred to the savings
bank account of the injured Sri Gouranga Mukherjee by the concerned
bank.
23. The O.P. insurance company shall give notice of the deposit of the
compensation amount to the claimant and shall also file a compliance
report with this Tribunal within 15 days of the deposit.
24. Supply copy of the judgment to the claimant and the O.P. No.2 free of
cost."
[8] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC)132 of 2016, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
[9] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has denied its
liability denying and disputing the claim and averments of the claimant,
the respondents herein and put her to strict proof thereof. It also
contended that the accident was result of rash and negligent riding of the
motor cycle by the victim and the truck was not at fault. It has been
further contended that the liability is subject to proof of valid insurance
policy of the offending truck and fulfillment of policy conditions. It has
been further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the victim only suffered 70% mental illness but the learned Court
below assessed the compensation 100%.
[10] This Court having gone through the material evidence on
record and the observation made by the learned Court below on this point
has revealed that medical opinion clearly shows that with 70% mental
disability, the injured cannot do any work to earn his livelihood. Evidence
of the claimant that the injured was a rubber taper is not disputed. With
70% mental disability, it is sure that, the injured would not get any work
of rubber taping. Hence, keeping in mind the nature of job the injured was
engaged in, this Court may reasonably foresee that the functional
disability of the injured is 100%.
[11] In view of overall analysis made by the learned Court below
and after going through the material evidence in its entirety, this Court is
of the view that the assessment of compensation as awarded by the
learned Court below is just and proper and needs no interference thus, the
findings as arrived at by the learned Court below stands affirmed.
Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.
[12] As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. Registry is directed to do the needful as per procedure and
thereafter, send down the LCRs forthwith.
T. Amarnath Goud, J
A.Ghosh
ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH
Date: 2025.04.08 14:44:45 +05'30'
