[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma on 7 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Mac App. No.18 of 2024
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
E-8, Rlico Industrial Area, Sitapur,
Joypur, Rajasthan, State-302022.
(Insurer of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-B-1440 Bus)
--- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma,
Son of Sri Bishu Debbarma,
Resident of village-North Longtarai,
PO&PS- Chawmanu,
District-Dhalai, Tripura,
Pin-799273.
2. Sri Dilip Saha,
Son of Narayan Ch. Saha,
Resident of A.K.Road, Ramnagar Lane No.02,
PS-West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
Pin-799002.
(Owner of vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-B-1440 Bus).
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Date of hearing : 07.02.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment : 11.02.2026
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard learned counsel Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh
appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company
and also heard learned counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee,
appearing on behalf of the respondent claimant petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the owner of the offending
vehicle bearing No.TR01B1440 (Bus).
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 challenging the judgment and award dated
12.09.2023 delivered by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Khowai, Tripura in connection with case No. TS
(MAC) No.14/2019. By the said judgment and award
learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.12,48,417/- along with interest @ 7% per annum with
effect from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. from
20.08.2019 to till the date of actual payment and fastened
the liability of payment of compensation up on the
appellant Insurance Company.
3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company first of all drawn the
attention of the court that in this case the learned Tribunal
although has awarded total sum of Rs.12,48,417/- under
different heads but at the time of determination of
compensation, the amount determined by the Tribunal
appears to be excessive, unreasonable and without any
evidence on record.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that towards the head of expenses relating to
treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing foods and miscellaneous expenditure Rs.
4,48,417/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal, which
appears to be an excessive one. In this regard, no
sufficient evidence could be produced by the claimant
before the Tribunal. Regarding future treatment and check-
up Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded and towards damages
for pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded.
5. According to learned counsel, the amount awarded
under the said heads are also excessive and towards of loss
of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded and
regarding loss of disability and disfigurement further
Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded in absence of cogent
evidence on record. So learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the amount as awarded by the learned
Tribunal appears to be exorbitant for which the interference
of the court is required.
6. It was also further submitted by the learned
counsel that since the petitioner is serving under TSR, it
may so happen that he has reimbursed the medical
expenses from his department and in spite of that he has
filed the claim petition again for which the same was not
maintainable. It was further submitted that being a
government servant the petitioner cannot claim double
benefits and so he urged before this court to take note of
this fact and also prayed for modification of the award.
7. On the other hand learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit
Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent
claimant submitted that due to the alleged accident the eye
of the claimant has been totally damaged and he has
become a disabled person. In support of his contention he
relied upon certificates issued by the Disability Board and
further submitted that from the evidence on record, it will
transpire that from Agartala he had moved towards Kolkata
with the help of support persons and for that he had to
incur huge amount for meeting up all the expenses and still
the claimant is undergoing treatment.
8. It was further submitted that although the claimant
was expecting some more amount because due to accident
he has sustained huge amount of financial loss but the
Tribunal only awarded a very meager amount which needs
to be interfered with and the amount awarded needs to be
enhanced and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the
appellant Insurance Company and urged for dismissal of
this appeal.
9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent claimant that in course of examination of
PW-1 the Tribunal itself examined the claimant in this
regard with the following question:
"Q.1. Have you received any medical
reimbursement from your department concerning
your treatment regarding accidental injuries?
Ans: No.
Q.2. Are you getting your salary regularly with
increment, etc., after the accident?
Ans: Yes."
From the aforesaid oral evidence on record, it is
crystal clear that he did not claim any medical
reimbursement from his department regarding his
treatment and once the claimant has given statement on
oath before this court being a government servant, as
such, there is no scope to presume that he has availed
double benefits i.e. one from his department and another
before the Tribunal. So learned counsel asked for imposing
costs upon the appellant in this regard for making such
irrelevant submissions.
10. In this case the claimant petitioner Kumar Joy
Debbarma (Rifleman No.09130125) submitted one claim
petition to the Tribunal alleging inter alia that on
18.01.2016 he was proceeding towards Agartala from
Gokulnagar TSR First Bn HQ, with one rifleman Sri
Chelaram Shahu by riding a motor bike bearing
No.TR01C0974 as per the instructions of the authority.
Chelaram had valid driving license and the claimant was a
pillion rider. The bike was possessed by the DGP Tripura.
When the claimant petitioner reached near Sabuj Sangha
at about 6.45 am on Sabroom-Agartala road at that time
one Bus bearing No.TR01B-1440 was coming from the
opposite direction. On seeing the bus the rider of the bike
reduced the speed and stopped the bike on the extreme
left side of the road but the driver of the bus dashed
against them and fled away leaving the spot for which the
respondent claimant petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
Local people shifted the petitioner to the Hapania Hospital
from where he was referred to GB Hospital.
Subsequently, he was referred to National
Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta on emergency basis on
08.01.2016. Thereafter, he was taken to National
Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta on 19.01.2016. Four
persons escorted him and one doctor also accompanied
him to Kolkata. He was admitted in the said centre on
19.01.2016 and was discharged on 03.02.2016.
11. He was given conservative treatment and
thereafter, he was referred to consult Ophthalmologist Dr.
Piya Sen for left eye injury. He underwent evisceration of
left eye with repair of upper lid injury under GA
No.22/01/2016 and he was under regular treatment of Dr.
Piya Sen.
12. The injury sustained by the petitioner was grievous
in nature and at the time of accident the injured was 26
years old. The attending doctor of National Neurosciences
Centre, Calcutta removed the left eye of injured and issued
a certificate to that effect stating that in future the
respondent petitioner cannot perform any heavy duty. A
disability certificate was issued in his favour by the Medical
Board of District Disability, Dhalai and he was visiting
Kolkata on regular basis for check up.
13. It was further submitted that one escort Goutam
Bhattacharjee took the injured to Kolkata on 08.11.2016
and returned back from Kolkata on 16.11.2016 and for his
daily work one helper was essential and one attendant was
engaged by his family members and he had to bear the
monthly expenditure of Rs.4000/- for the attendant. Due to
disablement he has become unable to perform his duty.
The department will not allow any promotion to him in
future. So, for the purpose of treatment he had to sustain
expenditure of huge amount and due to accident he also
could not attend to his duties for six months as he lost one
eye and according to the petitioner the accident occurred
due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the
vehicle bearing No.TR01B-1440. A criminal case was also
registered in this regard.
14. The OP contested the case by filing written
objection denying the assertions of the claimant petitioner
and the OP No.1 also took the plea that he is the registered
owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was duly insured with
the Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and the
vehicle had all the relevant documents, and further
submitted that since the vehicle was insured with the
Insurance Company, so the liability may be fastened upon
the Insurance Company.
15. The OP No.2, i.e. the present appellant herein also
filed a written statement denying the aspersions of the
claimant petitioner and submitted that the claim petition is
subjected to strict proof by the claimant petitioner. Upon
the pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed the
following issues:
" ISSUES
(I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and
nature?
(II) Whether on 18.01.2016 at about at about
06.45 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of a bus bearing Regn No. TR-01-B-1440
coming from Agartala side in high speed dashed the
victim/claimant-petitioner Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma
who was a pillion rider of a motor bike bearing No.
TR-01-C-0974 being driven by one Chelaram Sahu
near Sabuj Sangha on Sabroom-Agartala road
following which the claimant-petitioner fell on the
ground and received grievous injuries on various
parts of his body;
(III) Whether due to such accident the claimant-
petitioner is entitled to get any compensation; as
prayed for;
(IV) Whether OP No.1 is the registered owner of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-01-B-1440 (Bus)
and said vehicle was having valid documents
including insurance Policy;
(V) Whether the OP No.2 (Insurance Company) is
the Insurer of the offending vehicle;
(VI) If any compensation is payable, then who is
liable to pay the amount and what will be the
quantum of compensation to be paid to victim?"
16. Before the Tribunal, the claimant petitioner was
examined as PW-1 and he adduced three other witnesses
namely Smt. Subhadra Debbarma, Gautam Bhattacharjee
and Dr. Madhusudhan Das who were examined as PWs
No.2-4 and the documents relied upon by the claimants
like certified copy of the FIR, Seizure Lists, Injury reports,
Final report, Discharge certificate, Referral certificate,
Disability certificate, Medical prescriptions, money receipts,
cash memos, final bills etc. were marked as Exhibit 01 to
Exhibit 16/2.
17. The owner of the vehicle was examined as OPW
No.1 and the documents relied upon were marked as
Exhibit A-D. Finally, on conclusion of enquiry the Tribunal
allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant by order
dated 12.09.2023 the operative portion is as follows:
" ORDER
It is therefore ordered that the
petitioner, Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma is entitled to
get compensation of Rs.12,48,417/- (rupees twelve
lakh forty eight thousand four hundred and
seventeen) only in total along with interest @7%
per annum thereupon from the date of filing of
claim petition i.e. from 20.08.2019 till payment.
The OP No.02, the Sriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to make the payment
of said compensation along with interest within 30
days from today.
Furnish copy of this award to all the
parties free of cost.
The case is disposed of on contest.
Enter the result in relevant register and
in CIS."
18. I have heard both the sides and perused the
records of the learned Tribunal below and the evidence on
record and along with the judgment delivered by the
learned Tribunal. Admittedly, there is no dispute on record
regarding the fact of accident on the alleged date and time.
It is also the admitted position that due to accident the
petitioner has sustained grievous injury and he had to be
shifted outside the state for his better treatment and one of
the eyes was badly damaged.
19. In this regard, to substantiate the claim the
petitioner submitted all the medical papers, certificates,
prescriptions, tickets were submitted and the learned
Tribunal below after considering the oral/documentary
evidence on record awarded Rs.4,48,417/- towards
expenses relating to treatments, hospitalization, medicines
etc. I have perused the same.
20. In the considered opinion of this court the learned
Tribunal rightly awarded the said amount in favour of the
claimant. It is also on record that the claimant petitioner is
still undergoing treatment. So towards cost of future
treatment and check up learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,00,000/- which in the considered opinion is also
appears to be properly awarded. But regarding damages
for pain and suffering learned Tribunal below awarded
Rs.2,00,000,/- which in the considered opinion of this court
was not proper, rather it should be Rs.1,00,000/- only.
Because the learned Tribunal did not indicate anything in
specific as to why the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was
awarded. But regarding loss of amenities of life
Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded and loss of disability and
disfigurement Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
21. Since there is evidence on record that the claimant
sustained disability due to accident and in support of his
contention he relied upon the certificate issued by the
Disability Board as Exhibit-6 i.e. on 22.09.2016 issued by
the District Disability Medical Board, Dhalai District which
shows blindness with LE=ENOPTHALMOS 40% with further
recommendation to review after five years and another
disability certificate dated 11.11.2021 by which further
30% disability was decided by the District Disability Board.
22. Since the petitioner is a person serving under TSR,
Tripura so it is quite natural that there was very limited
scope on his part to perform any hard work and there is
very limited scope on his part to get any future promotion.
23. So the observation of the learned Tribunal towards
loss of disability and disfigurement and award of
Rs.2,00,000/- in the considered opinion of this court was
rightly awarded and there was no infirmity in that regard.
24. So after hearing both the sides it appears to this
court that excepting the head of damages for pain and
suffering learned Tribunal rightly decided and determined
the quantum of the compensation and awarded the amount
under different heads for which except one head there is no
scope to interfere with the rest part if any as decided by
the learned Tribunal. In the result the appeal is partly
allowed.
25. The award delivered by learned Tribunal below
dated 12.09.2023 is modified to the extent that the
respondent claimant petitioner shall get Rs.11,48,417/-
after modification of head towards for damages for pain
and suffering to Rs.100,000/- from the appellant Insurance
Company and the appellant Insurance Company shall pay
the said amount of Rs.11,48,417/- with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. with
effect from 20.08.2019 till the date of actual payment
within a period of two months from the date of this
judgment/award.
26. The amount awarded by this court shall be
deposited by the appellant Insurance Company to the
learned Tribunal below within the stipulated period.
27. With this observation, the present appeal is
modified and partly allowed.
Send down the records to the learned trial court
along with the copy of this judgment.
Supply a copy of this judgment to learned counsel
for the appellant insurance company and also a copy of this
judgment be furnished to the learned counsel for the
respondent claimant.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2026.02.12 11:59:39 +05'30'
Satabdi
