Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 343 (CAL)

Urmila Roy v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2003-07-11

S.P.TALUKDAR, SAMARESH BANERJEA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.P. Talukdar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001 passed by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal, Hooghly in M.A.C. Case No. 34/99. 2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:- 3. The present appellant, Smt. Urmila Roy, filed an application before the learned M.A. C. Tribunal, Chinsurah, Hooghly praying for statutory compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. She 'alleged 'that on 19th February, 1996 at about 6.30 a.m. while travelling in a Bus being No. WB-15/2612 which was proceeding towards Puri from Uttarpara, she sustained severe injuries as the said vehicle suddenly overturned by the side of the road i.e., National Highway No. 5 five persons died as a result of the said accident and many passengers including the petitioner sustained serious injuries. She was transferred to Jujpur District Hospital and from there to Bttarpara General Hospital from where she was discharged on 24th February, 1996. She is still under treatment and has practically become a disabled person. Over this, Barchona P.S. Case No. 34 of 1996 dated 19th February, 1996 under section 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code was started. The claimant categorically asserted that such accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the-said vehicle. 4. As against this, O.P. No. 1 before learned Tribunal, 'Lakhpati Devi' filed a written statement wherein all the material allegations made by the applicant were denied. 5. The New Indian Assurance Co. 'Ltd.; as 'O.P. No.2, contested the said case by filing a written statement. It however, admitted that the said vehicle being No. W.B. – 15/2612 was under valid insurance coverage at the relevant time. Age and income of the claimant had not been admitted and it was stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving. It had been further denied that the claimant became permanently disabled as a result of the injuries sustained by her due to the accident. 6. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances dismissed the claim application. 7. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001, the claimant preferred the instant appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for appellant Mr. 6. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances dismissed the claim application. 7. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001, the claimant preferred the instant appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for appellant Mr. Krishanu Banik, at the very outset submitted that learned Tribunal was not justified in not placing reliance upon Ext.6 the Medical Certificate which indicated that the claimant had become permanently disabled. 9. Before proceeding further it is perhaps necessary to refer to the materials on record. Of the two witnesses examined before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the claimant, PW-1 deposed in details in support of the averments made in the claim application. Such oral evidence derived effective support and strength from the evidence of the doctor, who certified that the victim suffered disablement to the extent of 38% as well as from the documents which included copy of the FIR, seizure list, injury certificate, copy of the insurance policy and the discharge certificate. 10. Certificate issued by PW-2, marked Ext.6 seems to be the centre of controversy. It did not seem to have inspire confidence of the learned Tribunal. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Banik, referring to the decisions in the case of Ashoke Vs. Ashok Singh, reported in 1996 ACJ page 392, submitted that certificate from a medical practitioner certifying permanent disability is sufficient to entitle the claimant for interim award under no fault liability. Reference was also made to the decisions in the cases of Santosh Kumar Vs. Sanjay More, reported in AIR 1999 MP 62 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., reported in (1999) 9 SCC 57 and Geetabai Vs. Satnanrayan, reported in II(2000) ACC 58. In support of his contention that disability certificate, even if issued after sometime cannot be brushed aside, he referred to the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Narsimloo, reported in I (2001) ACC 366. And, it had been emphatically stated by learned Counsel that even general physician can assess liability (Ref.- Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Khudiram Dutta, reported in 1980 CLJ 215 and Vibgyar Plastics Vs. K. Munusamy, reported in 1 (2002) ACC 402]. Much was argued relying upon the decision in the case of Rattan Lal Mehta Vs. And, it had been emphatically stated by learned Counsel that even general physician can assess liability (Ref.- Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Khudiram Dutta, reported in 1980 CLJ 215 and Vibgyar Plastics Vs. K. Munusamy, reported in 1 (2002) ACC 402]. Much was argued relying upon the decision in the case of Rattan Lal Mehta Vs. Rajinder Kapoor & Anr., reported in 1996 ACJ 372, in justification granting of compensation in the instant case. 12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, drew attention of the Court to the observation of the learned Tribunal while brushing aside Ext.6 and the oral evidence of PW-2. It, however, cannot be denied that Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation for the benefit of those who are victims of the rash and negligent play with the dangerous toys in the form of motor vehicles. Such an Act does not demand or deserve rigid technical interpretation. It is not necessary to dot every ‘i’ and cut every ‘t’ while dealing with a claim application under such Act. Etymological meaning of the word impairment has a very wide canvas and it covers ‘weakening’. In this context, how can it be possible to reject the evidence of a qualified doctor and the certificate issued by him ? 13. After careful consideration of the finding of the learned Tribunal we are tempted to hold that there had been a strenuous attempt to appreciate the evidence on record and learned Tribunal appears to have adopted a far too technical approach and in the process, has perhaps missed the wood for the trees. 14. It follows from the aforesaid discussion that there has been sufficient material to the satisfaction of one’s judicial conscience so as to establish the claim of the applicant. 15. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal and the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001 passed by learned MAC Tribunal, Hooghly in M.A.C. Case No. 34/99 stand set aside. 16. The instant appeal being F.M.A. No. 361 of 2001 thus succeeds on contest. Respondent/New India Assurance Co. Limited is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the application till realisation within six weeks from this date. 16. The instant appeal being F.M.A. No. 361 of 2001 thus succeeds on contest. Respondent/New India Assurance Co. Limited is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the application till realisation within six weeks from this date. Such amount shall be deposited before the learned MAC Tribunal, District, Hooghly and the said amount must be paid to the appellant/claimant by the learned Tribunal on proper identification. 17. There is no order as to costs. 18. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on payment of requisite fees. Samaresh Banerjea, J.: I agree Appeal succeeds.