Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 311 (TRI)

Commandant v. Bina Pani Nath

2014-08-04

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 08-11-2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 541 of 2003 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest in favour of the claimant. 2. This case has some rather astounding facts. The claimant met with an accident on 28-11-1986. He was at the relevant time working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and, therefore, one can presume that he had some knowledge about the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. An F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the accident and the factum of the accident is not disputed. There is one certificate of the Resident Surgeon of the G.B. Hospital, Agartala which shows that the claimant was admitted with a history of having received injury in a road traffic accident and he had received the injuries over the occipital region. Since the petitioner was unconscious and restless, he was given some treatment and thereafter he was referred to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata for further treatment. At SSKM Hospital, a CT-scan was done which showed no abnormality whatsoever in the skull and it was stated that everything is normal. The claimant has also placed on record a receipt for a sum of Rs. 80/- paid by the escort of the claimant as room rent in Tripura Bhavan, Kolkata during this period of 10(ten) days. Another letter which is on record is the letter dated 18-09-1989 of the Superintendent of Police (West), Tripura which shows that the claimant had been fully reimbursed for the medical expenses which were incurred by him at Kolkata. The claimant did not file any claim petition till the year 2003, i.e. for 17 long years. 3. It is true that there is no limitation for filing a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such, a claim petition can be filed at any stage. The petitioner must, however, state some reasons as to why he or she has not filed the petition within a reasonable period. The reason for saying so is that unlike in the present case, if in a case filed after 18 to 20 years, the respondent or defendant denies the accident, it would virtually be impossible to prove the accident. The petitioner must, however, state some reasons as to why he or she has not filed the petition within a reasonable period. The reason for saying so is that unlike in the present case, if in a case filed after 18 to 20 years, the respondent or defendant denies the accident, it would virtually be impossible to prove the accident. In cases of such inordinate unexplained delay, the burden lies very heavily on the plaintiff to prove all the facts because due to lapse of time it is virtually impossible for the respondents to disprove the allegations made by the claimant which may or may not be true. 4. Coming to the facts of the present case. The claimant at the time when the claim petition was filed was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The claimant is a police officer and he did not state that he had got medical reimbursement. Other than one or two documents, all the other documents of treatment relate to treatment which took place in the year 2003 and there is nothing on record to show that this treatment is in any way connected with the accident which took place in 1986. From the record which I have seen myself, I find that in 1996 nothing abnormal was found in the CT-scan. There is no doubt that the claimant remained admitted in hospital and initially he had some memory loss etc. but thereafter he seems to have recovered. The fact that he has recovered is also apparent from the fact that he continued to serve the department and worked with the department. The claimant very conveniently chose to file the claim petition just three months prior to his retirement. Therefore, though the claim petition may be maintainable, this Court will have to scrutinize the evidence with greater care with regard to the amount of compensation awarded. 5. Another aspect which must be kept in mind in deciding such cases where the claim petitions are filed after such inordinate delay is that the compensation has to be assessed in accordance with the law as it existed at the time when the accident took place. The salary on the date of the accident and not on the date of the filing of the claim petition has to be taken into consideration. Similarly, what are the attendant charges, medical expenses etc. The salary on the date of the accident and not on the date of the filing of the claim petition has to be taken into consideration. Similarly, what are the attendant charges, medical expenses etc. have to be assessed by taking into consideration the monetary value at the relevant time, and not at the time of making of the award. 6. Coming to the case in hand, I find that the learned Tribunal has grossly overestimated the amount of compensation. He has awarded compensation under certain heads which is more than even what would be awarded today. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the claimant out of which Rs. 20,000/- is for medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- for absence from duty. As far as the last claim is concerned, the claimant should have proved what was the period he remained without leave and what was his salary at the relevant time. He has not proved any of these two facts. No doubt, he was in hospital and was taken to Kolkata for treatment. So, the Court may have been justified in assessing the loss of income for about one month. I have no quarrel with this part of the finding of the Tribunal. However, how the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 11,000/- per month is beyond my comprehension. In the year 1986, an ASI was not getting Rs. 11,000/- per month as salary and I have been informed at the Bar that his salary was Rs. 1,301/- per month. This shows the total non-application of mind by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation. 7. Coming to the issue of pain and suffering. No doubt, the claimant suffered pain and did suffer because he had to be taken to Kolkata but after that he has recovered and there is no disability certificate placed on record. There is no medical evidence to show that he has suffered some permanent disability. In such a case, to award Rs. 50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is totally unjustified. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses without there being even one cash memo. The learned Tribunal has assessed the cost of a ticket from Agartala to Kolkata and back at Rs. 1,000/- per ticket but in the year 1986 the ticket was only Rs. 50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is totally unjustified. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses without there being even one cash memo. The learned Tribunal has assessed the cost of a ticket from Agartala to Kolkata and back at Rs. 1,000/- per ticket but in the year 1986 the ticket was only Rs. 239/- one way as has been verified from the Airlines. This again shows that the learned Tribunal was not aware of the principles as to how he was to award compensation. 8. Having held so, the fact remains that the claimant suffered injuries and an injury to the brain and had to be taken to Kolkata for treatment. He also required an attendant and may have been out of job for about one month. However, there is no evidence on record and taking a very liberal view of the matter, he is awarded Rs. 20,000/- in all as compensation. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is reduced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, i.e. by Rs. 60,000/-. On the amount of compensation so awarded, the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within four months from today after deducting/adjusting the amount, if any, already paid/deposited by them along with proof of such earlier deposit. 10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Send down the lower court records forthwith.