Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 371 (TRI)

Fanindra Sutradhar, S/O. Shri Joychandra Sutradhar v. Dulu Nandi, S/O. Jitendra Dhandra Nandi

2016-11-14

S.C.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. T.S.(MAC) 233 of 2012. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant as well as respondents even after repeated call. On the last occasion also there was no representation and it was clearly mentioned that if there is no representation today, the matter will be decided on merit. So, the matter is taken up for disposal on merit. 3. The appellant presented a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him due to motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that on 04.03.2012 he was travelling by bus vehicle No.TR01A1259 and the vehicle met an accident near Bholagiri Ashram at Gorkhabasti on the public road because of rash and negligent driving and as a result he sustained avulsion injury on the heel pad of his right leg and also injuries in other parts of his body and he was treated in G.B. Hospital from 04.03.2012 to 28.03.2012 as an indoor patient and thereafter also he has undergone treatment. 4. Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, denied the accident and further pleaded that the vehicle was having with all valid documents and it was insured with respondent Nos.2. Respondent No.2 also contested the case by filing written statement denying the claim of the claimant. 5. The Tribunal framed two issues, namely: “1. Did the claimant sustain any injury on 04.03.2012 at about 0755 hours at Mission road, Gorkhabasti in a road traffic accident involving Bus vehicle bearing No.TR011259 due to its rash or negligent driving? 2. Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same? 6. In course of trial the claimant appellant examined himself as PW1 and he proved the records of the police case, discharge certificate of G.B. Hospital, OPD tickets and the cash memos of purchase of medicine etc. Respondent No.1 proved the documents of the vehicle, driving licence of the driver and the certificate of Insurance. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,900/- in total as compensation. 7. Respondent No.1 proved the documents of the vehicle, driving licence of the driver and the certificate of Insurance. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,900/- in total as compensation. 7. The claimant having dissatisfied with the award filed the present appeal. 8. In the memo of appeal the claimant appellant contended that the doctor has deposed that the injury may cause impairment in his regular earning for the rest of life and so, the Tribunal would consider it and award appropriate compensation. The claimant appellant also contended that for pain and sufferings inadequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,500/- for attendants in hospital, Rs.8,400/- towards travelling expenses in attending hospital, Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning for three months, in total Rs.40,900/-. 10. The ground of appeal that the doctor has opined that the claimant appellant suffered impairment of regular earning for the rest of life, as I find, is not supported by the evidence of doctor. PW2, Dr. Bhupesh Sil stated “considering the injury it is not possible for the patient to bear weight on the heel. This is a type of disability. To heel up in a given case it may even take three months. As per the discharge certificate considering the condition at the time of discharge of the patient was advised further dressing”. The doctor nowhere opined that the claimant suffered impairment of regular earning for the rest of life. So, this ground taken by the claimant appellant is found to be devoid of merit. 11. The claimant appellant was hospitalized from 04.03.2012 to 28.03.2012, i.e., total 25 days, and thereafter also he attended OPD on different dates. Definitely, the claimant appellant suffered tremendous pain and sufferings. Towards pain and sufferings the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-, which, in my considered opinion, is at a very lower side and so the amount is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The claimant appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- in addition to what the Tribunal was awarded. 12. The respondent No.2 was held responsible for payment of compensation. The additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by this Court should be paid by the respondent No.2 within sixty days from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 13. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 14. 12. The respondent No.2 was held responsible for payment of compensation. The additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by this Court should be paid by the respondent No.2 within sixty days from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 13. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 14. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this Judgment and order.