Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 973 (GAU)

Sanjit Dey v. Soumesh Bhowmik

2011-12-09

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. This appeal, under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 is directed against judgment and award, dated 28.09.1999, passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agartala, in Case No. T.S.(MAC) 174 of 1997. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee for respondent No. 4. Other respondents did not participate in the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief fact, necessary for disposal of the appeal, is that the appellant as petitioner, presented an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injury sustained by him due to motor vehicle accident. The averments made in the claim petition are that on 15.02.1997, the petitioner was travelling by bus, bearing registration No. TR-01-1314, and was on way to Udaipur from Santir Bazar and at about 06.00 am, while the vehicle reached Chandrapur Bazar, another vehicle bearing registration No. TRS- 897, was coming from opposite direction with high speed and both the vehicle had a collision, and as a result, a serious accident occurred and the petitioner suffered severe injury both in upper and lower jaws and sixteen numbers of teeth were dislocated and also suffered several other injuries for which he was taken to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur and was admitted in the hospital but he got discharge on that day as there was no possibility for treatment of his injury in teeth. He attended private clinic of Dr. Dipankar Das at Udaipur, where eight nos. of teeth were extracted and since other teeth were also seriously affected due to the injury, he continued his treatment even at the time of presentation of the application and spent about Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of treatment. He, therefore, claimed compensation towards cost of treatment, pain and sufferings, loss of income, etc. 4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 contested the case by filing written statement, denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd., covering the risk on the date of accident and that the vehicle was having with all valid documents, and therefore, liability if any, should be borne by the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 1 stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd., covering the risk on the date of accident and that the vehicle was having with all valid documents, and therefore, liability if any, should be borne by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also denied the averments made in the claim petition but did not specifically deny the factum of insurance of the vehicle, covering the risk on the date of the accident. The Tribunal, as I find, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the injured claimant petitioner sustained injuries out of vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-1314 and TRS-897 by their drivers on 15.02.97? 2. Whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get compensation as prayed for? If so, what would be the quantum and which O.P. is liable to pay it? 3. What other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled to? 5. By the impugned judgment, dated 28.09.1999, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of treatment, Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of future treatment, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 20,000/- for facing difficulties due to the injuries, totaling Rs. 45,000/- with 12% interest from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 22.12.1997. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb, assailing the judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal, has submitted that the compensation towards loss of amenities of life and discomfort and disability the petitioner suffered after the accident, has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal and the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is most inadequate, and therefore, prayed for interference by this Court. Learned counsel, however, did not insist enhancement of compensation on other counts, as the petitioner could not submit sufficient document before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee, appearing for respondent No. 4, has submitted that the compensation was rightly assessed, and there is nothing to be enhanced in this appeal. 8. On perusal of the exhibited documents, I find that the petitioner was admitted in Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur on 15.02.1997 i.e. on the date of accident itself and was discharged on that very date. The discharge certificate shows that he was suffering from tenderness and loosening of teeth. 8. On perusal of the exhibited documents, I find that the petitioner was admitted in Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur on 15.02.1997 i.e. on the date of accident itself and was discharged on that very date. The discharge certificate shows that he was suffering from tenderness and loosening of teeth. There is nothing that any tooth was broken or lost at the time of accident. Exbt.1 also consists of two OPD slips dated 17.02.1997 and 21.02.1997, wherein I find nothing material to note down. A prescription dated 18.06.1997, prescribed by Dr. Dipankar Das has been produced, which shows that the petitioner lost eight numbers of teeth due to the accident. The discharge certificate of Tripura Sundari District Hospital does not show loss of any teeth on the date of accident. There is nothing in the prescription of Dr. Das that he extracted those eight teeth in course of treatment. He also did not mention as to when the patient first attended him and as to when those teeth were lost or extracted, which were dislocated or affected due to the accident. However, it appears that the petitioner sustained injury on his upper and lower jaws and his teeth of both jaws were affected as a result of the accidental injury. The petitioner, admittedly, did not produce any cash memos. relating to cost of treatment. However, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which in my considered opinion, is greatly of higher side. For future treatment also, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/-, but going through the record, I find nothing that the petitioner had to undergo treatment in future, at least at the time of giving evidence before the Tribunal, on 20.08.1999 i.e. after about two years of accident. The petitioner could not produce any document to show that after attending Dr. Das on 18.06.1997, he had undergone any further treatment. For pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- and that amount also seems to be sufficiently at a higher side. For future discomfort, etc., the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/-, which can in no way be said to be an amount less than expectation, specially, in the case in hand. 9. The amount ascertained and awarded by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant, in my considered opinion, is fair, just and sufficient and does not deserve enhancement on any count. 10. 20,000/-, which can in no way be said to be an amount less than expectation, specially, in the case in hand. 9. The amount ascertained and awarded by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant, in my considered opinion, is fair, just and sufficient and does not deserve enhancement on any count. 10. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed, however, without costs.