Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 282 (TRI)

Jyotish Chakma v. State of Tripura

2014-07-18

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.;-- 1. These two appeals are being decided by a common Judgment. The claimant Jyotish Chakma filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. According to the appellant, on 02.03.1993 he along with other passengers was going towards Chailengta from Manu in an auto rickshaw. At a place called Madhab Chandrapara, Jeep No. TRG-136 came from the opposite side and dashed the auto rickshaw. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep vehicle. The claim petition was filed more than 9 years later in the year 2002. The State took the defence that on the date of accident, it was not the owner of the vehicle Jeep bearing No. TRG-136 and it was also alleged that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw. 2. The learned Tribunal relied upon an earlier award passed in T.S. (MAC) 19 of 1994 dated 30.09.1999 wherein the Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible. According to the claimant, as a result of the injury received he became visually disabled to the extent of 30%. He lost vision of right eye to the extent of 30%. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 80,000/- and held both the State as well as the auto rickshaw driver liable to pay the amount in equal shares. The claimant Sri Jyotish Chakma has filed MAC Appeal No. 31 of 2007 claiming enhanced compensation whereas the State has filed MAC Appeal No. 105 of 2007 in which it is urged that the vehicle had been condemned and sold by the State prior to the accident and hence the State is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. As far as the appeal of the State is concerned, on 05.06.2014, this Court had passed the following order:- 05.06.2014. From the record I find that the learned MACT has relied upon the judgment delivered by the MACT, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Suit No. 19(MAC) of 1994 (Shri Padma Sen Chakma Vrs. Sri Swapan Kumar Baruah and D.M. & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar) wherein an award was made against the State arising out of the same accident. From the record I find that the learned MACT has relied upon the judgment delivered by the MACT, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Suit No. 19(MAC) of 1994 (Shri Padma Sen Chakma Vrs. Sri Swapan Kumar Baruah and D.M. & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar) wherein an award was made against the State arising out of the same accident. Sri S. Chakraborty may obtain instructions whether this award was challenged by the State or not and if challenged what was the result of the appeal. List on 10th July, 2014. In case no reply is filed by the State it shall be presumed that the State has not challenged the award. Copy of this order be handed over to Sri Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. within three days from today. 4. I have been informed by Sri S. Chakraborty that the said award was not challenged by the State probably because the State was proceeded against ex parte. However, after execution proceedings were filed, a petition was filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India was filed in this Court challenging the award, but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the award has attained finality and the award can be relied upon for the purposes of deciding the issues of negligence and liability of the State. Accordingly, the appeal of the State is without merit and hence, dismissed. 5. As far as the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is concerned, one complication has arisen and the claimant himself is at fault. After the award was passed by the learned MACT, he has entered into compromise/settlement with the owner and driver of the auto rickshaw and accepted Rs. 12,000/- from them in full and final settlement of his claim. The State has already been burdened with Rs. 40,000/- and in view of the fact that in the earlier award also the State was held liable to pay 50%, the claimant cannot now after having settled the matter with the owner of the auto rickshaw claimed higher compensation from the State. The claimant has created this position whereby he has accepted the award and compromised at an amount much less than that awarded and hence, now he cannot claim a higher amount from the State. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. The claimant has created this position whereby he has accepted the award and compromised at an amount much less than that awarded and hence, now he cannot claim a higher amount from the State. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 80,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal was just and reasonable keeping in view the fact that the disability is only in respect of loss of vision of 30% to the right eye. The assessment of compensation has to be made on the basis of the earnings in the year 1993 and not 2014. If 1993 is taken as the relevant year then the award by which Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded for treatment, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of earning and Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering is just and reasonable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant also has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal is disposed of.