Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 116 (TRI)

Biplab Pal v. Chandan Patari

2022-03-10

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the award dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala Court No. 5, in T.S. (MAC) No. 412 of 2011. 2. Brief facts, leading to this case are that on 21.06.2011 at about 12.40 hours, the appellant herein was proceeding to Ramrai Bari by riding his bicycle. On the way to the junction of the village, he found his friend Dwibyendu Chowdhury and he got down from the bicycle and was talking with him. At that time, one commander jeep bearing registration No. TR-03-3192 coming from Ramrai Bari towards Jolaibari and a Maruti Vehicle bearing No. WB-025-7527 coming from Jolaibari collided face to face and thereafter dashed the appellant-herein and his friend. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both vehicles. Due to the accident, the claimant-appellant herein sustained fracture injuries and was shifted to Jolaibari PHC wherefrom he was referred to GBP hospital, Agartala for better treatment and he remained admitted there till 23.06.2011. As there was no progress of the treatment, the appellant herein was admitted to the Tropical Orthopedic & Related Research Centre, Agartala on 23.06.2011, wherein, an operation was performed by Dr. Sankar Halder on 25.06.2011. The appellant-herein was discharged on 28.06.2011. As per the advice of Dr. Halder, the claimant-appellant herein again attended the hospital on 05.07.2011, 23.07.2011, 04.08.2011, and 23.08.2011 for check-up. On 23.09.2011, the appellant herein further attended the said hospital for removal of one screw of an interlocking nail, but, the other two screws were removed after 3(three) years. During treatment, the appellant herein was also escorted by his father, Niranjan Paul who is day labour by profession. The appellant claimed to be day labour by profession and has been earning Rs. 250/- per day. Due to said accident, the appellant could not perform his regular duties from 21.06.2011 to November 2011. It is further stated that as per the opinion of the attending doctor, the appellant may not be able to walk for about 3(three) years from 23.08.2011. 3. The appellant-claimant filed a case for compensation for Rs. 250/- per day. Due to said accident, the appellant could not perform his regular duties from 21.06.2011 to November 2011. It is further stated that as per the opinion of the attending doctor, the appellant may not be able to walk for about 3(three) years from 23.08.2011. 3. The appellant-claimant filed a case for compensation for Rs. 4,26,000/- before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala as the appellant would reside at Agartala at the time of filing of the said case being T.S.(MAC) 412/11 which was transferred to the file of the MACT, No. 5. The learned Tribunal passed an award dated 01.06.2013 allowing only Rs. 66,038/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim. 4. Against the said award, the appellant filed an appeal being MAC App. No. 95/2013. Notices have been served upon respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 properly. But the notice could not be served upon respondent No. 2, though notice has been sent by registered post. Subsequently, after hearing the same, Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Tripura has sent back the record, after setting aside the award dated 01.06.2013 in T.S. (MAC) 412 of 2011 with a direction to dispose of the case within 6(six) months. Accordingly, the learned tribunal after a fresh trial disposed of the T.S. (MAC) No. 412 of 2011 on 16.08.2019 awarding Rs. 2,30,294/- with 9% simple interest per annum to be paid by the Insurance Company. As per the award, the insurance company paid the amount. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant preferred this appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Admit the appeal; b) Call for the record of the T.S. (MAC)412/11 from the Court of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 5; c) Issue notice upon the respondents; d) After hearing the parties may pass necessary award/judgment, setting aside the award dated 16.08.2019 passed in T.S.(MAC) No. 412/11 and may award just compensation. e) Pass any such order/orders, relief/reliefs as to the Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper.' 6. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R.R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant and Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. During the course of the argument, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. e) Pass any such order/orders, relief/reliefs as to the Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper.' 6. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R.R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant and Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. During the course of the argument, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel, appearing for the claimant-appellant has drawn the attention of this Court seeking enhancement on the account of loss of income at Rs. 6,000/- a month for a period of 3(three) years as the learned Tribunal has considered only 1(one) year and the appellant-claimant is entitled to 2(two) more years of enhancement since he was away from service. In support of his said claim, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the document at Page No. 89 of the Paper Book. The said document is the doctor's certificate which is dated 07.06.2014, wherein the Doctor has categorically stated 'IM Nail removed on 06.06.2014'. Accordingly, medication has been prescribed. 8. Except for the pleading of the claimant-appellant, neither any medical evidence nor any documentary evidence is on record in support of this claim seeking enhancement. In the absence of any such evidence, this Court has no hesitation to say that the claim cannot be considered. 9. In view of the above observation and direction, this instant appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.