Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 217 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Gopikanta Dey

2000-06-22

H.K.KUMAR SINGH, H.K.SEMA

body2000
H. K. Sema, J.— We have heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent/claimant. 2. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and award dated 7.6.1996 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in MAC Case No. TS (MAC) 29 of 1993 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,000 per month for future treatment for a period of seven years amounting to Rs.2,52,000 adding another sum of Rs. 12,000 towards mental shock and physical sufferings and Rs.40,000 as the cost of treatment already incurred. Learned Tribunal also ordered interest for the whole amount @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on 4.3.93 till payment is made. 3. The basic facts may be noted. The claimant was holding the post of Joint Director in the Directorate of Fisheries, Govt. of Tripura. On 5.9.92 he was proceeding on duty in a Govt. vehicle bearing registration No.TR 01-0816 from Agartala to Udaipur. The driver of the said jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and after he applied the break to control the vehicle, the vehicle went upside down and rolled several times and in the process the claimant sustained severe injuries. A Medical Board has been constituted by the State Govt. and the Medical Board certified that the claimant suffered above 40% of total disabilities. X-ray and scanning on the body were also done and it was found that his vertebrae have been fractured and his spinal cord received heavy pressure. At the time of the trial before the Tribunal, the claimant could not come for deposition and therefore, he was examined on Commission. 4. The sole grievance raised by the appellants in this petition is that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the future compensation. This being the sole question, we have advised the learned counsel of both sides to see if there is any decision by the Apex Court as well as by this Court with regard to the admissibility of future compensation and future treatment, Mr. Saha assisted by Mr. Ghosh referred to a decision of the Apex Court in RD Hattangadi vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd & others ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ). Saha assisted by Mr. Ghosh referred to a decision of the Apex Court in RD Hattangadi vs. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd & others ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ). In that case, the Apex Court considered the pecuniary damages and special damages while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident. It was pointed out by the Apex Court that in such a case, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. It was further pointed out in paragraph 9 of the judgment that the special damages may include the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 5. The future damages are the special damages. In our view, the special damages as enunciated by the Apex Court as referred above is future damages. In the instant case, the evidence on records is that the claimant has suffered above 40 percent total disabilities that is to say the total damages. X-ray and scanning examination show that his vertebrae have been fractured and his spinal cord received heavy pressure. Injury such as spinal injury is a permanent injury and the claimant has to suffer through out his life. So also is the evidence that the claimant could not walk without the help of an attendant and this had resulted in examining the claimant on Commission during the trial before the learned Tribunal. This would show that the claimant has suffered permanent disabilities which would require the constant medical treatment, as long as he lives, in the form of physiotherapy. Claimant has to move about with the help of stretcher and for this he requires a constant attendant. The learned Tribunal has awarded cost of future treatment only for a period of seven years which has already been expired. It is stated by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that the claimant is still living and is under continuous medical treatment 6. The learned Tribunal has awarded cost of future treatment only for a period of seven years which has already been expired. It is stated by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that the claimant is still living and is under continuous medical treatment 6. Parties have also referred to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra vs. P. Muniam Babu & others ( AIR 1999 SC 2260 ) in which following the decision made in RJD Hattangadi (supra) made the following observation: “It was further held that whenever a Tribunal or Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing damage, the Court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable.” 7. In view of the Supreme Court decision as referred above, we are of the view that while considering the amount of compensation, the Court is guided with hypothetical consideration like sympathy linked with the nature of disability, but not to consider on speculation or fancy or conjectures. 8. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and future disabilities and the expectation and longevity of life and other activities, we are of the view that the claimant has suffered permanent disabilities and the award of Rs.3,000 per month for a period of seven years, in our view, does not merit any interference. However, the interest @ 12% per annum for future treatment is modified to the extent that no interest shall be payable on the future expenditure awarded by the Tribunal. The award of Rs. 12,000 due to mental shock and pain is also remained. 9. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of as indicated above.