Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 863 (GAU)

Ramhari Dakua v. Folu Kanti Paul

2012-07-20

S.TALAPATRA

body2012
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.08.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.S.(MAC) No. 32/2000. The appellant while travelling from Agartala by a Jeep bearing No. TR-01-3677 to the BSF Camp at Gakulnagar for reporting to his duties, the said vehicle capsized for rash and negligent driving in the roadside. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, left hand, waist and other parts of the body. He was taken to the G.B.P. Hospital for treatment and thereafter on considering the nature of injuries, he was taken to Kolkata and confined to prolonged treatment. At the time of the accident, he was 28 years and working as a Constable in the 68 Bn. BSF. He claimed for recovery of damages that he sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence as led by the appellant, both oral and documentary, held that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-3677 and that the appellant was attending the different hospitals namely, G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala, National Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata, B.S.F. Hospital at Salt Lake, Kolkata, Kolkata Medical College & Hospital and City Hospital, Berhampur for surgical intervention and medical treatment and from 30.12.1999 the appellant was undergoing treatment till the day of deposing in the Tribunal. It has been further held that the appellant was a young and unmarried person. 2. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, observed that even though a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was claimed as the medical expenses/proper vouchers were not brought in the evidence. However, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for the said component on guess. The Tribunal also awarded the following components to form the compensation: Rs. 35,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of amenities in life and Rs. 25,000/- for loss of comfort etc. Thus, the total compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal came to Rs. 90,000/- with 9% inter per annum from 14.01.2000, the date of presenting the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the event of failing of payment within 45 days from the day of the award i.e. 27.08.2001, the interest would enhance to 16% per annum. 90,000/- with 9% inter per annum from 14.01.2000, the date of presenting the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the event of failing of payment within 45 days from the day of the award i.e. 27.08.2001, the interest would enhance to 16% per annum. In the appeal, the findings as returned as regards the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, injuries received by the appellant for the accident or the insurance cover of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. 3. Ms. P. Deb(Paul), learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the assessment of compensation cannot be held just and adequate in view of the medical records as produced by the appellant in the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A. G. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Company Ltd., quite vehemently submitted that the medical expenses as incurred by the appellant were reimbursed by the Border Security Force (B.S.F.) and they have borne all the medical expenses and for that reason the original vouchers could not be produced in the Tribunal. Moreover, it has been submitted by Mr. Gon Choudhury that the appellant has been serving in the BSF and for the injuries as suffered by him, his employment has not been affected adversely in any manner. As such, there is no apparent loss of his income. He defended the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal as adequate and just in view of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. This Court while re-appreciating the evidence, found that the appellant was in continuous confinement as the indoor patient from 30.121999 to 18.05.2001 with some intermissions of a negligible period for medical treatment and surgical intervention in the hospitals as stated. It cannot be denied that the appellant had incurred a huge expenses for such treatment, but at the same time the contention of Mr. A.G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 cannot be brushed aside inasmuch as no money receipts for treatment could be produced by the appellant for the assumed reason that those were submitted for having the medical reimbursement from the employer. As per the Medical Attendance Rules, 1965 or the Rules pari materia thereof, only the travelling allowance and the expenditure of the treatment are paid to the employee concerned. As per the Medical Attendance Rules, 1965 or the Rules pari materia thereof, only the travelling allowance and the expenditure of the treatment are paid to the employee concerned. Besides that there are some other unavoidable expenses for treatment and as such in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant must get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to the amount that has been awarded for cost of treatment. Apart that, from Exbt.-8 it is apparent that the Medical Board of the City Hospital, Ganjam, Berhampur, after assessment, stated that 55% temporary disability has been suffered by the appellant. From the Discharge Certificate of the National Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata, it is also apparent that the appellant has suffered serious stiffness and for recovery of which knee bending and quadriceps exercises were suggested. All these evidences tend to show the extent of pain and suffering as undergone by the petitioner and therefor, Rs. 50,000/- is assessed for pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- is assessed for loss of amenities and capacities. As such, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,65,000/- (rupees one lakh sixty five thousand). The said sum shall carry interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 14.01.2000 till the entire award is paid in the Tribunal. 6. The offending vehicle having been admittedly insured by the respondent No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., the entire compensation as assessed hereinabove shall be paid by the insurer within a period of 2(two) months from today without fail after deducting the sum, if any, already paid. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Appeal allowed.