Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 981 (GAU)

Rajendra Singh Yadu Vanshi v. Prantosh Saha

2012-08-16

S.TALAPATRA

body2012
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. There is no representation from the other respondents despite due notice from the court. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 29.5.2002 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.S. (MAC) No. 19 of 1999. 2. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 27.6.1998 at Jowai while the appellant was proceeding towards Agartala from Shillong by the vehicle having registration No. TR 01-B 0385 (Maruti van), the offending vehicle having registration No. TR 01-1892 (truck) coming from the opposite direction with high speed and being driven rashly and negligently dashed the said Maruti van, the injuries as received by the claimants and the insurance cover of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 3 are not in dispute in this appeal and as such those findings stand affirmed, requiring no fresh appraisal. 3. The solitary ground that has been projected in this appeal is related to the assessment of compensation that has been made in exclusion of the disablement certificate as issued by Silchar Medical College & Hospital through its Department of Orthopaedics. 4. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, seriously questioned the finding as regards the exclusion of the medical certificate issued by Silchar Medical College & Hospital in assessing the rate of disablement (part of Exh. 1 series). Apart from that, denial of the coaxial components, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, has denied the just compensation as envisaged in section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In particular, it has been pointed out that for pain and suffering a very meagre amount of Rs.3,000 has been awarded by the Tribunal and no component for the future discomfort or, in other words, the loss of amenities has been provided due consideration. Even though Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, questioned the way the medical expenses have been assessed, but ultimately he did not press that point, according to the reasons as assigned by the Tribunal. 5. While refuting, Mr. Even though Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, questioned the way the medical expenses have been assessed, but ultimately he did not press that point, according to the reasons as assigned by the Tribunal. 5. While refuting, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, submitted that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal cannot be questioned inasmuch as the judgment and the analysis provided therein is founded on sound reasons and analogy. 6. On consideration of the rival contentions as well as the records, this court is inclined to revisit the assessment of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and for that purpose it is necessary to examine the issue regarding exclusion of the permanent disablement certificate as issued by Silchar Medical College & Hospital through its Department of Orthopaedics. 7. Silchar Medical College & Hospital has been declared by the Government of Assam as one of the authority to issue the permanent disablement certificate under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Silchar Medical College & Hospital in return authorised the said duty so far as the orthopaedic ally handicapped persons are concerned its Department of Orthopaedics. The disability certificate as issued by them carries the complexion of the document as defined under section 74 of the Evidence Act. As such, the Tribunal ought not to have excluded such certificate (part of Exh. 1 series). This court is inclined to accept the 30 per cent permanent disability of the appellant as received from the said accident. 8. In view of this, the following components as assessed by the Tribunal are set aside and substituted: (i) For pain and suffering Rs.75,000 (ii) For loss of amenities and capacity (since there had been no loss of income) Rs.1,00,000 Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,17,500 (rupees two lakh seventeen thousand and five hundred), keeping intact the compensation as granted by the Tribunal as regards the loss of leave and the medical expenses. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 6.1.1999 till the payment is made. 9. The respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., shall pay the awarded amount in the Tribunal within 2 (two) months from today, after deducting the sum, if any, has been paid by now. 9. The respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., shall pay the awarded amount in the Tribunal within 2 (two) months from today, after deducting the sum, if any, has been paid by now. On such deposit, the claimant-appellant would be at liberty to withdraw on proper identification. For the reasons as discussed, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs in the fact and circumstances of the case. Send down the LCRs forthwith. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.