Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 256 (TRI)

Dulal Chandra Deb v. Abu Mia

2014-07-02

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 28-09-2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (MAC) 398 of 2003 whereby an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 06-12-2002 when he was returning home on a bicycle through Kunjaban road, truck No. TR-01-1549 belonging to Abu Mia and insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the bicycle causing injuries to him. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-, but during the pendency of the claim petition he filed an application for amendment that on 24-09-2003 he suddenly fell down from the stairs of his house and suffered another fracture. The claim of the petitioner was that he fell down on account of the injuries sustained in the earlier accident and, therefore, he should be awarded compensation for this second injury also. 3. The learned Tribunal did not believe the story of the petitioner that the second fall was in any way connected with the first accident. The learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Aggrieved by this award of Rs. 1,40,000/-, the claimant has filed the present appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The discharge certificate issued by the G.B. Hospital shows that the claimant was admitted there on 06-12-2002 and discharged from the hospital on 12-12-2002 with head injury. He was referred to the SSKM Hospital. Therefore, the claimant remained in the hospital at Agartala for 6(six) days. It is also apparent that thereafter the claimant and his attendants had to fly by air to Kolkata. The case of the petitioner is that at Kolkata he could not get admission in SSKM Hospital and, therefore, he went to AMRI Hospital where he was admitted on 12-12-2002 and discharged 11 days later on 23-12-2002. The diagnosis was cerebral contusion with bilateral subdural hygroma. With regard to condition at discharge, it is noted "no neurological deficit except slightly impaired mental function". The diagnosis was cerebral contusion with bilateral subdural hygroma. With regard to condition at discharge, it is noted "no neurological deficit except slightly impaired mental function". Thereafter, the claimant went again to AMRI Hospital for follow up treatment on 25-01-2003 and this time no neurological deficit was found and there is no mention of even slight impairment of medical function. It thus appears that the claimant had totally improved after the second treatment on 25-01-2003. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the learned Tribunal that the second fall had nothing to do with the first accident. The patient has been described to have fully recovered in January, 2003 and if he falls after 8(eight) months in September, 2003, he cannot connect the same with the previous accident. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has been forced to award the compensation on lump sum basis since the claimant has not produced any receipts with regard to the expenses incurred by him on his treatment. I have perused the entire record and I find that there are virtually no receipts and only the aircraft tickets are on record. Few receipts which are on record are barely for couple of thousand of rupees. Therefore, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- for medical expenses is more than reasonable calling for no interference. 6. There is no disability certificate placed on record. No doctor has been examined to show as to what is the disability and if one relies only on the documents of the claimant, it is apparent that after two months of the accident he had fully recovered. Therefore, I find no ground to enhance the compensation. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Send down the lower court records forthwith.