Tripura High Court
Smt. Namita Biswas vs Md. Selim Miah on 28 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP No.6 of 2024
Smt. Namita Biswas,
Daughter of Late Sukumar Biswas,
Resident of Barjala, Near Agriculture Officer,
P.O. Barjala, PS: West Agartala,
District: West Tripura
----Appellant Claimant Petitioner (s)
-Versus-
1. Md. Selim Miah,
Son of Madan Miah,
Resident of Bhati Abhoynagar (Bitarban),
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District: West Tripura, PIN:799 001
(Owner of TR-01-W-6139: Super Splendor Bike)
2. The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard,
Second RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala,
District: West Tripura,
(Insurer of RR-01-W-6139: Super Splendor Bike)
---- Respondent Opposite Parties (s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishore Kumar Pal, Adv.
Ms. Punam Muirasingh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasanta Sen Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 28.07.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal is preferred by the claimant Smt. Namita
Biswas under Section 173 of MV Act challenging the
judgment and award dated 13.09.2023 delivered by
Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West
Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC) 212
of 2019, for enhancement of the award.
02. Heard Learned counsel Mr. K. K. Pal along with
Ms. P. Murasingh appearing on behalf of the appellant and
also heard Learned Counsel Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury
appearing on behalf of the respondent owner and Learned
Counsel Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the respondent
OP No.2 i.e. the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard.
03. At the time of hearing Learned counsel for the
appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court
referring the award dated 13.09.2023 delivered by Learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and submitted that
in para No.16 of the award Learned Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.1,84,573.00/- for the purpose of expenditure incurred
for treatment and hospitalization. But the appellant had
spent more than the said amount. But the Learned Tribunal
only awarded a very meager amount in this head. He
further submitted that towards rest and hospitalization a
lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for
engagement of attendant and a further lump sum amount of
Rs.10,000/- was awarded for special diet, nutrition and the
cost of transportation by the Learned Tribunal below.
Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court
referring para No.18 of the award and submitted that for
the purpose of pain and sufferings only Rs.20,000/- is
awarded which is also too less. In support of his contention
Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court that
before the Learned Tribunal the appellant filed her
examination-in-chief as PW-1 and in para No.2 she narrated
everything. For the sake of convenience, I would like to
refer hereinbelow the relevant para No.2 of the
examination-in-chief filed by the appellant which are as
follows:
"2. That on 03-07-2019 at about 19.55 hours I was
proceeding towards a shop near Mahan Club at Barjala
with a view to purchase some goods, at that time a motor
bike bearing registration No. TR-01-W-6139 (Super
Splendor) which was coming from Agartala direction with
tremendous speed with rush and negligence manner and
dashed behind me. I jolted out about 10 to 15 feet from
where I was standing. As a result of said violent dashing
I received severe head injury and injury upon my right
ear. I also sustained severe bleeding injury upon my
head.
Immediately after the accident, the local people rushed to
the spot and rescued me and brought to AGMC & GBP
hospital. The attending doctor of AGMC & GBP hospital
done stitches upon my cut injuries and I got admitted
into the AGMC & GB P hospital, Trauma Centre as an
indoor patient. After performing the stitching upon my
cut injury, I was kept without any further treatment for
about 3 hours and no senior doctor attend me. My
relatives found the deterioration condition of me and in
spite of repeated request of the relatives and requisition
made for senior doctor by the junior doctors who were
performing their duty in the Trauma Center, but no senior
doctor was turn up.
My relatives as well as well-wishers found that the
progress of treatment in AGMC & GBP hospital was in
poor condition. Considering my precarious condition, my
relatives was voluntary discharged from the AGMC & GBP
hospital at about 11.30 pm. on the date of accident by
giving the option of own risk discharge.
Immediately I was brought to ILS hospital, Agartala and
Emergency Unit. Thereafter I was treated in I.C. Unit
under constant observation of Neurosurgeon. The final
diagnosis is following injuries.
(i) SDH (Left frontal) temporoparietal contusion (right)
(ii) Cut injury upon my head
(iii) Decreased hearing from right ear
I was treated in ILS hospital from 04-07-2017 to 16-07-
2019, though I was discharged from ILS hospital, but I
could not come round fully well as I was filling acute
head pain. The doctor of ILS hospital advised that for my
head injury there would be prolong treatment and I have
to attend after every 3(three) months at ILS hospital,
Agartala. Till today I am undergoing treatment under the
doctor of V.S. Chavan and others doctor of ILS hospital
and my injury is not cured."
04. It was further submitted that the appellant was
admitted in ILS Hospital with effect from 04.07.2019 to
16.07.2019 and she sustained cut injury to her head and
her hearing capacity became lower due to said accident. But
the Learned Tribunal did not consider the said aspect and
only awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
sufferings. It was further submitted that the above part of
her evidence remain unrebutted by the contesting opposite
parties. Learned Tribunal below could award more enhanced
amount. Regarding future loss of income the Learned
Tribunal below did not award anything. But it was submitted
by Learned Counsel for the appellant that even after
discharging from the hospital till today the appellant is
undergoing treatment she cannot hear properly and even
cannot speak properly. But the Tribunal below awarded very
lesser amount and with that amount it would be difficult on
her part to sustain the expenditures already been incurred
by her. So Learned Counsel relying upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj
Allainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014) 9
SCC 241 and another judgment in Ankur Kapoor vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2018) 1 SCC
136 prayed for enhancement of the award.
05. Learned Counsel for the owner Mr. P. Sen
Chowdhury submitted that as the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the respondent No.2, so the Learned Tribunal
fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the
respondent No.2. As such, the said respondent has got
nothing to say regarding enhancement of award.
06. On the other hand, Learned Counsel Mr. R. Saha
appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that
admittedly before the Tribunal the insurance company did
not file any written statement but before the Tribunal the
appellant could not adduce any proper oral/documentary
evidence on record to sustain her claim and as such the
Learned Tribunal below rightly awarded the compensation to
the appellant and based upon the evidence on record the
appellant at this stage cannot take the plea that the amount
awarded by the Learned Tribunal below be enhanced. He in
support of his contention referred para nos.16, 17, 18 and
19 of the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal
below and submitted that at the time of delivery of
judgment Learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects
and awarded the compensation for which there is no scope
to interfere with the judgment and award for dismissal of
this appeal.
07. In this regard I would like refer the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay
Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343
wherein in para No.6 and 7 Hon'ble the Apex Court
observed as under:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity). In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi)
relating to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of
amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss
of expectation of life.
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.
08. Now in the case at hand let us discuss about the
subject matter of the claim petition. The appellant filed the
claim petition before the Learned Tribunal seeking
compensation alleging inter alia that on 03.07.2019 at
about 19.55 hours the claimant was proceeding towards a
shop near Mohan club at Barjala to purchase some goods
and at that time a motor bike bearing registration No.TR-
01-W-6139 (Super Splendor) came therein with excessive
speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the
appellant from her backside resulting which she jolted out
about 10 to 15ft from her original position and received
severe bleeding injuries. Immediately she was taken to
AGMC & GBP Hospital wherein she was admitted in the
Trauma Centre and the attending doctor stitched her cut
injuries but finding no potential treatment the appellant
took voluntary discharge and was admitted in ILS Hospital
with effect from 04.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 wherein Dr. V.S.
Chavan of ILS Hospital attended her. It was further
submitted that at the time of accident she was 52 years of
age and her monthly income was Rs.61,075/-. So the
appellant filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.21,00,000/-. It was further submitted that on this issue
NCC PS Case No.2019/NCC/076 under Section 279/338 of
IPC read with Section 184 of the MV Act was registered.
Before the Tribunal the respondent OP No.1 appeared and
filed written statement but the insurance company did not
submit any written statement. However, the Learned
Tribunal upon the pleadings of the parties framed the issues
which runs as follows:
(i) Is the claim maintainable in its present form and
nature?
(ii) Had the claimant petitioner suffered any kind of
injury due to road traffic accident on the alleged date,
time and place on account of rash and negligent driving
on the part of the driver of vehicle? If so, is the claimant
petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
(iii) What should be the quantum of compensation and
who shall be liable to pay the compensation?
(iv) What other relief/reliefs is the claimant petitioner
entitled to get?
09. In order to prove the issues documentary
evidences were adduced by the claimant and finally on
conclusion of enquiry Learned Tribunal below allowed the
claim petition by the judgment and award dated
13.09.2023. The operative portion of the judgment runs as
follows:
"The instant application under Section-166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioner is
partly allowed and a sum of Rs.2,24,573.00 (Rupees Two
Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Three)
only is awarded in favour of claimant-petitioner with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition i.e. 03.10.2019 till the date of payment.
The amount of compensation shall be paid by OP No.2
within a period of one month."
It is to be noted here that before the Tribunal the
OP No.1 was examined as OPW1 and relied upon some
documents which were marked as exhibits but the insurance
company did not adduce any oral/documentary evidence on
record.
10. I have seen the judgment and award delivered
by the Learned Tribunal below. There is no dispute on
record in respect of fact of accident on the alleged day and
also the fact of filing the FIR by the informant and also the
filing of chargesheet. Since the appellant in this appeal
prayed for enhancement, let us see whether the judgment
and award of the Tribunal was proper or not.
11. It is undisputed that the appellant was/is a
Government servant. However, Learned Tribunal below in
para No.16 based upon the exhibits awarded a sum of
Rs.1,84,573.00/-. In this regard Learned Counsel for the
appellant although submitted that this amount was meager.
But to substantiate this Learned Counsel could not draw
attention of the Court showing that Learned Tribunal below
overlooked or did not consider some more other cash
memos and prescriptions in support of her injury. As such at
this stage there is no scope on the part of this Court to
enhance the amount. So I stand agree with the said amount
of Rs.1,84,573.00/- awarded by the Learned Tribunal
towards expenditure incurred for hospitalization and
treatment by the appellant. Now in respect of attendant
charges it appears that Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/-. From the evidence on record it appears that
the appellant was admitted in ILS Hospital with effect from
04.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 i.e. for a period of thirteen days
and prior to that she was also admitted in AGMC & GBP
Hospital for a day. So during that period she must have
attended by the attendants in the hospital at least by two
attendants @750/- per head which comes to Rs.1500 per
day. So for two attendants for 13 days the appellant has
incurred expenses Rs.19,500/- but the Tribunal awarded
only Rs.10,000/-. So in my considered view under this head
the appellant is entitled to get Rs.19,500/- in place of
Rs.10,000/-. Regarding special diet, nutrition and cost of
transportation Tribunal has awarded compensation of only
Rs.10,000/-. However relying on the judgment of the Apex
Court as stated above under this head the appellant is
awarded Rs.25,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/- and as such
this Court awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards
special diet, nutrition and cost of transportation to the
appellant. Further on perusal of the judgment of the
Learned Tribunal it appears that towards pain and sufferings
Learned Tribunal below only awarded Rs.20,000/- which in
the considered opinion of this Court the amount is too less.
So under this head the appellant should be awarded a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- because due to accident the appellant
might have sustained mental trauma and as she sustained
injury to her head and ear although the Learned Tribunal
below submitted that no fracture injury was sustained by
the appellant. But this will persist. So the appellant is
entitled to the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in place of
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Regarding loss of
income Learned Tribunal did not award any amount because
it is the admitted position that the appellant is a
Government employee and before the Tribunal the appellant
failed to prove that she availed Earned Leave during the
period of her hospitalization. Rather she might have
received salary after availing Medical Leave as she was
entitled to get the same. Before the Tribunal although she
took the plea that she could not perform her duties for two
months. But in this regard she could not produce any
documentary evidence to substantiate that she was any
particular leave for two months. So it appears to this Court
Learned Tribunal rightly decided the issue that appellant
was not entitled to get any award towards loss of income. In
respect of future medical expenses, Learned Tribunal came
to the observation that as the appellant did not sustain any
fracture injuries nor any deformities as such Learned
Tribunal refused to award any amount towards that head.
However, in the considered opinion of this Court she is also
not entitled to get any award under the head of future
medical expenses/treatment. However, as Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded towards pain and sufferings so this head would
cover the expenses of the future treatment if the same is at
all requires for the treatment of the appellant.
12. Thus the appellant is entitled to get award for the
purpose of treatment and hospitalization Rs.1,84,573.00/-.
Rs.19,500/- for engagement of attendants, Rs.25,000/-(for
special diet, nutrition and transportation cost), Rs.1,00,000
(for pain and sufferings) which in total comes to
Rs.3,29,073/-. As there is no dispute on record from the
side of the respondent insurance company regarding
payment of compensation to the appellant. As such in the
considered opinion of this Court the Learned Tribunal rightly
fastened the liability of payment of compensation to the
respondent insurance company. So the respondent
insurance company be asked to pay the aforesaid amount to
the appellant accordingly.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
appellant is entitled to get enhanced amount of
Rs.3,29,073/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition to till the date of
payment/realization and the amount of compensation shall
be paid by the respondent OP No.2 i.e. the insurance
company to the claimants within a period of six weeks from
the date of delivery of the judgment.
A copy of this judgment and order be furnished
to the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant free of
cost and a copy of this award be furnished to the Learned
Counsel for the respondent insurance company free of cost
for information and compliance. If by this time no award is
deposited by the insurance company in that case the entire
amount of compensation shall be deposited by the
respondent insurance company to the Registry of the High
Court within the stipulated period as indicated above.
Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal
along with a copy of this judgment.
With this observation this appeal is disposed of.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.07.30 05:09:18
+05'30'
Moumita
