[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Parimal Banik vs (A) Sri Mantosh Das on 5 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP 127 OF 2025
Sri Parimal Banik, son of late Sudhir Banik, resident of
Srirampur, P.O. + P.S. Kailasahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura;
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1(a) Sri Mantosh Das, husband of late Jhuma Das, son of lt.
Makhan Das, resident of Durgapur, Ward No.13, P.S. Kailasahar,
District- Unakoti, Tripura;
1(b) Smt. Arpita Das, daughter of late Jhuma Das and Sri
Mantosh Das, Durgapur, Ward No.13, P.S. Kailasahar, District-
Unakoti, Tripura;
Both the respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) are the legal heirs of late
Jhuma Das D/o B.K. Das of Chandipur, P.S. Kailasahar, District-
Unakoti, Tripura ... owner of TR-02-0619 (maruti van);
2. Sri Tutu Chakraborty, son of Jyotish Chakraborty, resident
of Srirampur, P.O. + P.S. Kailasahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura;
3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited, Kailasahar Branch, Unakoti, Tripura;
---- Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SS Debnath, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery : 05.02.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
05/02/2026
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant challenging
the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2025 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti District,
Kailasahar, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 01 of 2018.
2. Heard Mr. SS Debnath, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant. Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.3 and Ms. A. Debbarma, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b).
3. Shortly stated, out of a road traffic accident occurred
on 11.05.2004, the claimant-appellant sustained injuries resulting
which he has become disabled to a certain extent, and
subsequently he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal
and he was awarded compensation vide judgment and award
dated 30.06.2022. On being aggrieved, the respondent-insurance
company, being appellant, filed an appeal before this High Court
challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2022 passed in
TS(MAC) 1 of 2018 which was registered and marked as MAC App.
40 of 2023. After analyzing the record, this Court vide its
judgment and order dated 21.06.2024, remanded the matter to
the learned tribunal below for considering the matter on the point
of disability since the Disability Certificate produced was of
14.09.2017 whereas the accident took place on 11.05.2004 with a
further direction to assess just and fair compensation after proper
appreciation of the evidences on record. On receipt of the case
record, learned tribunal issued notices upon the parties to the lis,
who on their appearance declined to adduce further evidence, but
the doctor who issued the Disability Certificate adduced his
evidence to prove the disability certificate. On conclusion, learned
tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.64,526/- with interest
@6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the claimant-appellant.
4. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has contended that the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel
further contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly
appreciate the validity of the disability certificate. It is contented
that the fist Certificate was issued on 27.04.2006 which is valid for
five years. The Second Certificate was issued in the year 2017. It
is further contended that effect of disability is gradually increasing
resulting which the income of the appellant has been disturbed.
Learned counsel has urged this court to enhance the award.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
urged this court to maintain with the findings of the learned
tribunal.
6. I have perused the entire record.
7. On bare perusal of the record, evidently it is well
established that there is no pleading or evidence regarding income
of the claimant-appellant. Further from the deposition of the
Medical Officer (CW-1), Dr. Abhisek Majumder, it is evident that
the claimant-appellant sustained locomotor disability to the extent
of only 20%. From cross-examination of CW-1 it is further evident
that the pain sustained by the claimant-appellant not
degenerative. Further, there is no issue of any surgery undergone
by the claimant-appellant. Moreover, 20 years have elapsed the
claimant-appellant faced the accident.
8. Upon consideration of the totality of facts and
circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to warrant an
interference with the impugned award, and the same cannot be
interfered with. Accordingly, it is made clear that the findings of
the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 26.06.2025 in T.S.
(MAC) 01 of 2018, is not liable to be disturbed and hence, the
same is affirmed. The appellant-insurance company shall deposit
the awarded amount, if not paid, with the Registry of this Court
within 1(one) months from today. Registry shall adjust
Rs.25,000/- which was submitted by the appellant at the time of
filing of the appeal, as per procedure.
However, it is made clear that on such deposit, the
claimant-appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the same in
terms of the conditions as laid down in Order dated 26.06.2025
passed in T.S.(MAC)01 of 2018.
9. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the claimant-
appellant stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.02.10 03:52:43
-08'00'
