Opposite Party No.4 vs Sri Nepal Chandra Dhupi
2025 Latest Caselaw 291 Tri

Tripura High Court

Opposite Party No.4 vs Sri Nepal Chandra Dhupi on 2 August, 2025

                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                    MAC.APP.No.03 of 2024

National Insurance Company Limited,
represented by the Divisional Manager,
office at A.K. Road, P.O.-Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura
(Insurer of the vehicle No.TR-01-H-1881(Max Pickup)

                               ---- Opposite Party No.4 Appellant(s)

                               Versus

1. Sri Nepal Chandra Dhupi,
son of Late Maran Chandra Dhupi,
resident of Village-Jumerdepa,
P.O.-Melaghar, P.S. Melaghar,
District-Sepahijala, Pin-799115
                                        ---- Claimant Respondent(s)

2. Md. Kabir Maishan, son of Chhidikur Rahaman Maishan of Village-Bejimara, P.O. Sonamura, P.S. Sonamura, Sepahijala, District-Sepahijala Tripura (Owner of Bus Vehicle bearing No.TR-07-1207(Bus)

3. The Branch Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office at Daza House 2nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bass Road, Chennai, 600001, Regional Office-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Aashtha Plazaq; 4th Floor;

Opposite S.B. Deorah College; Ulubari Guwahati, 781005 (Insurer of Bus Vehicle Registration bearing No.TR-07-1207(Bus)

4. Sri Khokan Saha, son of Sri Sridam Saha of Village-North Chandrapur, P.S.-R.K. Pur, District-Gomati (Owner of the vehicle Registration bearing No.TR01H1881(Max Pickup)

[---

----Respondent(s) ______________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajashree Purkayastha, Adv.

For Respondent(s)         : Mr. Kishore Kumar Pal, Adv.
                            Mr. Anjan Kanti Paul, Adv.
                            Rajiv Saha, Adv.
Date of hearing
& Judgment & Order         :02.08.2025
Whether fit for reporting : NO

_________________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

This appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated 06.06.2023 delivered by

Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.5, West Tripura,

Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC)177 of 2017.

[02] Heard Mr. R. Purakayastha, Learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited. Also heard

Learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Pal appearing on behalf of the respondent

claimant petitioner and Mr. R. Saha, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the OP respondent No.3 and Learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Paul appearing on

behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle

bearing No.TR-07-1207(Bus).

[03] At the time of hearing Ms. R. Purakayastha, Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant National Insurance Company Limited

drawn the attention of this Court that by the judgment and award dated

06.06.2023 Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,85,000/- in

favour of the petitioner and fastened the liability of payment of

compensation upon the OP Nos,2 and 4 i.e. the present appellant and the

respondent No.3, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited

to satisfy the award i.e. 50% each with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of

filing the claim petition w.e.f. 25.09.2017 to till the date of realization.

[04] It is also submitted by Learned counsel for the appellant

Insurance Company that the Leaned Tribunal below in absence of cogent,

oral/documentary evidence on record assessed the monthly income of the

petitioner at Rs.15,000/- which was too high and for that the interference of

the Court is required because the petitioner is not a skilled worker rather he

is an unskilled worker and even if the notification of this High Court dated

04.08.2023 is followed in that case to that extent his monthly income can

be assessed to Rs.10,000/- only as an unskilled worker.

[05] It was further submitted by Learned counsel for the appellant

that towards the head of future treatment, Learned Tribunal has awarded a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was also not supported by any medical advice

or relevant documents to justify the award. In respect of rate of interest

imposed by the Learned Tribunal, Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that as per the settled norms in every cases now a days 7.5%

interest is being imposed but here in the case at hand the Learned Tribunal

has awarded interest @ 8% which also needs to be modified by allowing

this appeal.

[06] On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Pal, Learned counsel for the

respondent claimant petitioner drawn the attention of the Court referring

page-165 of the paper book i.e. the certificate issued by the Secretary,

Bairagi Bazar Market Committee (Exbt.6) wherein it was mentioned that the

petitioner deals in vegetables and considering the market situation of that

relevant period Learned Tribunal rightly determined the monthly income of

the petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per month which was reasonable, rational and

justified for which the same cannot be interfered with at this stage of

appeal. It was further submitted by Learned counsel for the respondent

claimant petitioner that the evidence of the petitioner remain un-rebutted

by the contesting opposite parties before the Tribunal, so, at this stage of

appeal the same plea cannot be considered.

[07] In respect of future treatment, Learned counsel referring some

medical documents of the respondent claimant and also referring some

photographs in respect of injury of the claimant drawn the attention of the

Court that the respondent claimant petitioner has sustained 50% disability

and considering the nature of his injury, already Learned Tribunal below has

awarded Rs.10,30,000/- towards the expenditure which the petitioner

incurred for the purpose of his treatment and he was out of employment for

a long period and furthermore, till today, he could not be fully recovered

and situated thus, the said amount appears to be reasonable, rather

Learned Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under the said head. In

respect of rate of interest, Learned counsel for the respondent claimant

petitioner submitted that there are some cases of the Hon'ble Apex Court

wherein 9% interest is imposed but the Learned Tribunal only awarded 8%

which according to Learned counsel was reasonable and in summing up,

Learned counsel submitted that there was no infirmity in the judgment and

award delivered by Learned Tribunal below and urged for dismissal of the

appeal by upholding the judgment and award delivered by Learned Tribunal

below.

[08] Learned counsel, Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the

respondent Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited also

adopted the same submission made by Learned counsel for the present

appellant.

[09] On the other hand, Learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Paul appearing

on behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle

bearing No.TR-07-1207(Bus) submitted that his vehicle was duly insured

with the Insurer on the relevant date of accident but on the merit of the

appeal he did not submit anything.

[10] In this case, the respondent claimant petitioner filed one claim

petition before the Learned Tribunal with the assertions that on the alleged

day the respondent claimant petitioner went to Agartala for the purpose of

bringing of fruits from the whole seller and when he was returning back to

his home by travelling a bus bearing registration No.TR-07-1207 from

Agartala to Nalchar and as soon as the bus reached at Puskarbari under

Bishramganj P.S. that time a Max Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.TR-

01-H-1881 which was coming from the opposite direction with high speed

rashly and negligently and both the vehicles collided with each other and as

a result of which the right hand of the claimant petitioner was badly

damaged and it was separated from the body and right hand bone was also

broken into several pieces. Immediately, thereafter, the fire service came to

the place of occurrence and arranged for shifting of all the injured persons

including the petitioner to AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala. On

03.04.2017 the claimant was admitted in AGMC and GBP Hospital as an

indoor patient. On the following day, a Medical Board was constituted

considering his injury and the Medical Board referred him to Kolkata on

04.04.2017 and accordingly, the respondent claimant petitioner went to

Kolkata and admitted in Rabindranath Tagore Hospital and treated therein

till 17.04.2017 and even after major operation and skin grafting the

respondent claimant petitioner was in bed ridden condition and his right

hand was not functioning properly and he was not in a position to move his

right hand and so, the petitioner again went to Kolkata and admitted in

Rabindranath Tagore Hospital and admitted in the said hospital on

13.06.2017 and discharged on 16.06.2017 and 14.06.2017 further skin

grafting operation was done and even after prolong treatment it was found

that the claimant was not in a position to move his right hand properly. So,

for further treatment the claimant petitioner again was compelled to move

to Kolkata and on 4th September, 2017 visited the Rabindranath Tagore

Hospital and further undergone treatment and he was advised to go for

further treatment after every three months by his doctor. It was further

submitted that due to accident his family had suffer a lot which is

continuing till today and the accident occurred due to negligence and rash

driving of driver of both the vehicles. It was further submitted that due to

accident he sustained disability, so, he attended disability Board when the

Medical Disability Board on 01.01.2018 issued disability Certificate to the

extent of 50%. Hence, he filed the claim petition.

[11] The OP No.1 did not contest this case by filing written

statement so the case was proceeded exparte against him. The OP No.3 in

the original petition i.e. the owner of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-H-

1881(Max Pickup) contested the case by filing written statement denying

the assertions of the claimant petitioner. Rather the said OP took the plea

that on the alleged day the OP No.3 was proceeding through Bishramganj

road and the driver of the vehicle was driving the same very slowly keeping

himself on the extreme left side of the road and when the vehicle reached

near Puskarbari that time one bus bearing registration No.TR-07-1207(Bus)

came from Agartala with excessive speed rashly and negligently and dashed

against the vehicle of OP No.3 and due to that dashing the vehicle of the OP

No.3 was totally damaged and there was no negligence on his part. It was

further submitted that his vehicle was duly ensured with National Insurance

Company at the time of accident. The OP No.2 i.e. Cholamandalam MS

General Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written

statement denying the assertions of the claimant petitioner in the claim

petition and submitted that the claim petition is subjected to strict proof by

the respondent claimant petitioner. The National Insurance Company

Limited i.e. the OP No.4 in the original proceeding, now the appellant herein

also contested the case by filing written statement denying the assertions of

the respondent claimant petitioner and also took the plea that the claim

petition was subjected to strict proof and denied the rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-H-1881(Max Pickup) by its driver.

[12] Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Tribunal below

framed the following issues :

"(i) Is the claim petition maintainable ?

(ii) Whether the claimant petitioner got injured as a result of accident on 03.04.2017 at about 12.30 hours due to collusion in between TR-07-1207(Bus) and TR-01-H-1881(Max Pickup) for the rash and negligent driving of drivers of the vehicles at Puskarbari on National Highway-44 under Bishramganj Police Station ?

(iii) Whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get compensation, and if so up to what extent and who is liable to pay the compensation?"

[13] To substantiate the issues from the side claimant petitioner two

witnesses were adduced and the petitioner relied upon some documents

which were marked as exhibits and the OP No.3 Khokan Saha was

examined as OPW-1 and relied upon the documents which were also

marked as exhibits. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer herein

below the name of witnesses of the parties and their exhibited documents

which are as follows :

"APPENDIX Claimant Witness :-

PW.1-Sri Nepal Chandra Dhupi PW.2-Dr. Tapan Kumar Das

Claimant Exhibits :-

Ext.1 :- Disablement certificate dated 01.11.2018. Ext.2 :- Prescriptions.

Ext.3 series :- Discharge summary, operation note, outpatient slip etc. Ext.4 series :- Bill, money receipts. Ext.5 series :- Air tickets, Boarding Cards. Ext.6 :- Photograph of injured claimants. Ext.7 series :- Income certificate issued by Jumerdepa Gram Panchayat.

Ext.8 :- Certified copy of FIR, Ejahar, Seizure list and Charge sheet in c/w Bishramganj PS case.

Ext.9 :- Original discharge certificate. Ext.10 :- Original referral certificate. Ext.11 series :- Cashmemos/bill/money receipt/vouchers.

Opposite party's Witness :-

OPW.1 - Sri Khokan Saha.

Exhibits by Opposite party No.1 :-

Ext.AA -Registration Certificate. Ext.AB - Insurance certificate. Ext.AC-Driving licence."

[14] Finally, on conclusion of enquiry, Learned Tribunal below

allowed the claim petition and by the judgment and award dated

06.06.2023 disposed of the case with the following observations :

"It is ordered that, an amount of Rs.25,85,000/-(Rupees twenty five lakhs eighty five thousand) is awarded in favour of the petitioner as compensation. The OP No.2 and OP No.4, the insurer of the Bus and Max Pick up bearing registration No.TR-07-1207 &

TR-01-H-1881 are equally directed to pay the compensation as awarded i.e., to say the OP No.2 would pay ½ (half) of the compensation amount of Rs.25,85,000/- and Op No.4 would pay ½ (half) of the compensation amount of Rs.25,85,000/-. The OP No.2 and 4 are also directed to pay the interest @ 8% per annum on total awarded sum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. on 25.09.2017 till the date of realization. Sixty(60) percent of the awarded amount is to be fixed deposited for five years and rest amount of compensation is to be released in favour of the claimant in his bank account."

Challenging that award of the Learned Tribunal the National

Insurance Company as appellant has preferred this appeal as already stated

being the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-H-1881(Max Pickup).

[15] I have heard arguments of both the sides and also gone

through the judgment delivered by the Learned Tribunal below. In

delivering the judgment and award Learned Tribunal below relied upon the

following citations :

(i) Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others, AIR 2020 SCC 4424.

(ii) Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC

(iii) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 254.

(iv) Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343.

(v) National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, (Para-55).

(vi) Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Para-36).

(vii) Jagdish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571.

(viii) Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2019) 7 SCC 217.

(ix) Kirti and Anodther v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166.

(x) Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 AIR SCW 4992.

[16] As already stated that the appellant, Insurance Company at the

time of hearing confined the arguments only on three points :

(i) Excessive determination of monthly income.

(ii)Granting award of Rs.1,00,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence on record towards future treatment.

(iii) Imposition of rate of interest @ 8%.

[17] The respondent claimant petitioner objected the points of

argument raised by Learned counsel for the appellant, National Insurance

Company. Now, on perusal of the judgment, it appears that in determining

the amount of compensation, Learned Tribunal below based upon Adhar

Card determined the age of the respondent claimant petitioner as 37 years

on the day of alleged accident and came to the observation that a man of

37 years can earn Rs.500/- per day easily. Thus, determined the monthly

income at Rs.1,5000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant at the

time of argument drawn the attention of the Court referring the notification

dated 04.08.2023 issued by this High Court wherein the notional wages in

claim cases for unskilled labour workers was determined at Rs.10,000/- per

month and for skilled workers Rs.12,000/- per month after 31.12.2015.

Here in the given case, it is on record that the respondent claimant

petitioner is a fruit seller/vegetable seller and he is/was running his shop at

Bairagi Bazar. The accident took place on 03.04.2017 and learned counsel

for the respondent claimant petitioner at the time of hearing only relied

upon Exbt.6 i.e. the certificate issued by the Secretary, Bairagi Bazar

Market Committee under Jumerdhepa Gaon Panchayat. On perusal of the

same, it appears that he is a vegetable seller but in the said document

regarding his monthly income nothing was mentioned, even no income

certificate either from the local administration or from the Secretary of the

Panchayat could be submitted or proved by the respondent claimant

petitioner before the Learned Tribunal below. So, there is no scope to place

reliance upon said Exbt.6 although it is not disputed by the contesting

parties that he was selling vegetables/fruits.

[18] It was further submitted by Learned counsel for the petitioner

that by the trend of cross examination the evidence of the claimant

petitioner could not be shaken but this argument is not conclusive as

because it is the duty of the claimant petitioner to substantiate his monthly

income both by adducing oral/documentary evidence on record. The

contesting OP did not dismantle his evidence in respect of his monthly

income cannot be a sole ground for believing that his earning was

Rs.15,000/- per month during the year, 2017 in a place like Bairagi Bazar,

Jumerdhepa. But since the contesting OP did not raise any dispute

regarding his profession and considering the location of profession of the

petitioner it can easily be taken into consideration that during the period of

2017 the respondent claimant petitioner being a vegetable seller could earn

not less than Rs.400/- per day treating that he used to earn

vegetables/fruits for thirty days in a month. The notification of this High

Court would not support this case because that was in respect of worker but

here in the given case the petitioner is a businessman. However, Learned

Tribunal without any specific finding straightway determined his monthly

income at Rs.15,000/- per month which in the considered opinion of this

Court is too high which should actually be not less than Rs.13,000/-

although it is stated that he used to earn Rs.400/- per day but sometimes

as a vegetable seller he could have earn more than Rs.400/- also. So,

considering all aspects this Court believes that Rs.13,000/- would be

appropriate amount towards monthly income of the respondent claimant

petitioner. If it is so, then the calculation of compensation would reduce

slightly being calculated by the Tribunal. Tribunal awarded Rs.45,000/- for

loss of income for three months which should be Rs.39,000/- i.e. Rs.13,000

x 3 during the period of treatment.

For future loss of income, Learned Tribunal treating his monthly

income at Rs.15,000/- determined yearly income Rs.1,80,000/- and

thereafter deducted 50% considering his disability and came to the

observation that Rs.90,000/- would be his actual loss of income. Now, since

the income is reduced, in that case, his yearly income would comes to

Rs.1,56,000/- and after deducting 50% his actual yearly loss of income

comes to Rs.78,000/-. Now with that amount, based upon the judgment of

Smt. Sarla Verma(supra) multiplier 15 would apply. So, his actual loss of

income will comes to Rs. 11,70,000/- which the petitioner will be entitled to

gets future loss of income.

Regarding loss of treatment, Learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.10,30,000/-. Since nothing was raised by the appellant in this regard

and so, the same amount is also accordingly awarded in favour of the

respondent claimant petitioner.

Now regarding pain and suffering and trauma Learned Tribunal

awarded Rs.60,000/-which in my considered opinion was rightly awarded.

Regarding future treatment, Learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- which the appellant disputed in this appeal. From the

evidence on record both oral/documentary and the nature of injury

sustained by the respondent claimant petitioner it appears to this Court that

that there was no infirmity in this regard towards awarding that amount by

the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. Although Learned counsel raised

objection to that but I do not find any satisfactory ground to

disbelieve/ignore that amount which has been granted by Learned Tribunal

in favour of the petitioner.

So, in summing up, Learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.25,85,000/- but as some modification is made in the award, so, after

revised calculation the amount of compensation would comes to Rs.39,000

+ 11,70,000 + 10,30,000 + 60,000 + 1,00,000 = Rs.23,99,000/- which in

the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled to get in this

case.

[19] Learned counsel for the respondent claimant petitioner

although tried to draw the attention of the Court that monthly income of the

petitioner was rightly assessed by the Tribunal but in the considered opinion

of this Court, Learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate the evidence on

record without assigning any specific reasons/grounds straightway

determined Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the petitioner which in my

considered opinion was not proper. Regarding imposition of rate of interest

it appears that the Learned Tribunal below has awarded 8% interest which

in the considered opinion of this Court is also not proper because

considering the present market scenario and the rate of interest imposed by

different banking authorities it appears to this Court that in place of 8%

interest, rate of interest in this case should be awarded @ 7.5% p.a.

[20] In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent

claimant petitioner is entitled to get the modified amount of Rs.23,99,000/-

along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition w.e.f.

25.09.2017 to till the date of realization/actual payment. Both the

Insurance Company shall deposit 50% amount each to the Learned Tribunal

below within a period of two months from the date of delivery of this

judgment/order.

A copy of this judgment be furnished free of cost to Learned

counsel of both the Insurance Company i.e. the National Insurance

Company Learned counsel to Ms. R. Purakayastha and also for

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited to Learned counsel

Mr. R. Saha for information and compliance. Also a copy of this judgment

be supplied to Learned counsel for the respondent claimant petitioner, K.K.

Pal free of cost.

Send down the record of the Learned Tribunal below along with

a copy of this judgment/order.

The case is thus disposed of.

Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

MOUMIT Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA Date: 2025.08.05 00:49:47 +05'30' Sabyasachi B