Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 374 (TRI)

Sudhangsu Gope v. Siddhartha Nag

2016-11-14

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1, despite due notice from this Court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant, who filed the claim petition for realising the damage he has suffered from the accident that had taken place on 04.04.2013 when the appellant was returning his home at Dhaleswar from Chandrapur Bazar on foot. The offending vehicle bearing temporary registration No.TR01MTEM4327 [Hunk motorcycle] hit the appellant coming to the extreme left side of Assam Agartala Road. As a result, the appellant sustained grievious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was rushed to the GBP hospital, Agartala. Later on, he was shifted to Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM teaching hospital. He was admitted there till 09.04.2013. Thereafter, the appellant went to Kolkata for having better management of his injuries. In the claim petition, the appellant claimed for Rs. 69,20,824/- (Rupees Sixty Nine lacs Twenty thousand Eight hundred Twenty Four) as damage on various heads. But by the impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2015, delivered in Title Suit (MAC) No.256 of 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.3, West Tripura, Agartala has awarded a sum of Rs. 58,730/- (Rupees Fifty Eight thousand Seven hundred Thirty) with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.15.06.2013 directing to pay the same within a period of 2(two) months of the date from the said judgment and award. It has been also provided that if within the stipulated time, the entire compensation is not paid to the appellant, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.06.2015, this present appeal has been filed for seeking interference from this, particularly for enhancement of the award. 3. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that expenses of travelling or food for the appellant or his escort have not been awarded by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that for expenses of return journey was also not awarded in favour of the appellant. He has also submitted that the cost allowed for the attendant is grossly inadequate. The cost of additional transport is on the lower side. He has further submitted that for expenses of return journey was also not awarded in favour of the appellant. He has also submitted that the cost allowed for the attendant is grossly inadequate. The cost of additional transport is on the lower side. Therefore, he has urged that this court should revisit those aspects and enhance the compensation. 4. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the judgment and award does not suffer from any infirmity, except the imposition of the penal interest @9% per annum. The penal interest cannot be survive as the apex court has decided in no certain terms that under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to impose penal interest or any further rate of interest with retrospective operation. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the records as well as the impugned judgment and award, this Court is of the view that since there is no dispute relating to the fact of accident, injuries received by the appellant, his treatment by way of hospitalisation etc. and the involvement of the said motorcycle in the accident which was at the relevant point of time under valid insurance by the respondent No.2, this court will not dwell upon on those factual matrix. 6. The grounds of objection as urged in this appeal are that the compensation as granted for the pecuniary loss for the accident on various heads are not just and those require to be revisited and redetermined. It appears from the impugned judgment and award that the appellant was under treatment at G.B.P hospital, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital and in the Institute of Neurosciences, Kolkata. He was treated in the hospital till 15.04.2013 by various institutes from 04.04.2013. Thus, the period of treatment as an indoor patient ranges from 04.04.2013 to 15.04.2013 [total 12 days]. The tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/- for physical position, pain, sufferings, mental agony, stress, discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the appellant as non-pecuniary damage following the principles laid down in R.D. Hattangadi vrs. M/S. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 . This Court is of the considered opinion that the pain and suffering, being the non-pecuniary damage should be enhanced to Rs. M/S. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 . This Court is of the considered opinion that the pain and suffering, being the non-pecuniary damage should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) in the present context. The appellant has been given the expenses of the air ticket toandfro at Rs. 5,000/- but no expenses has been given for his escort. The tribunal has approved the claim of the appellant for the expenses of one way air journey at Rs. 2,553/-. Thus, with escort, the permissible expenses of air journey would come to Rs. 11,032/-, rounded off at Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand). 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly submitted that all the vouchers and receipts of payment have been taken care, of by the Tribunal and as such, the amount awarded for the cost of medicines amounting to Rs. 32,730/- shall remain unaltered. Now, it has not been disputed that the petitioner was under treatment from 04.04.2013 to 15.04.2013 in different hospitals. In that period, the cost of engaging attendant as awarded by the tribunal is very meagre and hence, it requires enhancement. Thus, this court would enhance to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) for the cost of the attendant. This court has not been considering the loss of income as the petitioner had been working as a bank employee during the period of treatment. On that occasion, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) is provided to the appellant. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 88,730/- (Rupees Eighty Eight thousand Seven hundred Thirty). The said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.06.2013, till the payment is made. However, as it is already indicated that there shall be no penal interest @9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal, such award stands set aside as it has been already held by this Court that under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to impose either penal interest or any higher rate of interest for nonpayment with retrospective effect. The respondent No.2, the National Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the compensation within a period of 2(two) months from today after deducting the sum, they have already paid. The respondent No.2, the National Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the compensation within a period of 2(two) months from today after deducting the sum, they have already paid. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive the entire award from the tribunal on proper identification. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.