Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 188 (TRI)

Jyoti Rani Debnath v. Bimal Sutradhar

2022-04-12

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - MAC Appeal No. 22 of 2021 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the awarded compensation of Rs. 12,82,552/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only) passed on 26.06.2020 by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Gomati Judicial District Udaipur in T.S.(MAC) 48/2018, to the extent of Rs. 16,20,000/- or more and MAC Appl. No. 30 of 2020 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 168 of the Act ibid, against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 48 of 2018. 2. Both these two Motor Accident Claim Appeals have been heard together and disposed of since both the appeals arise out of common judgment. 3. The facts in brief common in both these appeals are that on 17.09.2013, at about 09.00 pm, the deceased Chitta Ranjan Debnath was returning from his shop at Udaipur Market riding his bicycle and when he reached Khilpara on Udaipur road to Kakraban under R.K. Pur P.S. Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura near Gas Godown, vehicle No. TR-03-A-1917 (Tata Ace) knocked him down. As a result of which, he fell down on the roadside and received fatal injury to his head, lacerated blood clot on the left side of his scalp frontal bone fracture, and multiple injuries. The above-mentioned vehicle immediately fled away towards Kakraban. Thereafter, local people shifted him to TSD Hospital, Udaipur where he succumbed to his injuries. The Medical Officer of AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala after examination of the injured person, declared him brought dead. 4. On 18.09.2013, the Post Mortem Examination was conducted on the body of the deceased, and the Post Mortem Examination report was prepared by the Medical Officer at AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives. Subsequently, a written compliant qua the said accident was registered at R.K. Pur P.S. vide Case No. R.K. Pur P.S. 320 of 2013 under Section 279/304A of IPC dated 18.09.2013. Thereafter, the 10 of the case conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing death due to rash and negligent driving. Subsequently, a written compliant qua the said accident was registered at R.K. Pur P.S. vide Case No. R.K. Pur P.S. 320 of 2013 under Section 279/304A of IPC dated 18.09.2013. Thereafter, the 10 of the case conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing death due to rash and negligent driving. The claimant-petitioners therein approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. T.S. (MAC) 48/2018 with a claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/- only for the death of Chitta Ranjan Debnath in a motor vehicle accident on 17.09.2013 caused by the vehicle No. TR-03-A-1917(Tata Ace). 5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed 2(two) issues of determination which are as follows:- 'i'. Whether Chitta Ranjan Debnath, S/o. Late Debendra Debnath succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 17.09.2013 at about 09.00 pm at Khilpara near Gas Godown on Udaipur-Kakraban road under R.K. Pur P.S., due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TR. 03.A1917 (Tata Ace) ii. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the MV Act, 1988? If so to what extent and who shall be liable to so compensate?' 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 12,82,552/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two) only along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and the said amount shall be paid wholly by the Oriental Insurance Company within a period of one month from the date of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed on 26.06.2020, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC) 48 of 2018, the claimant-appellant in MAC Appeal No. 22 of 2021 has prayed for following reliefs:- '1) admit the appeal; 2) call for the records from the learned Tribunal below; 3) issue notice upon the respondents; and 4) after hearing the parties would further be pleased enough to modify the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2020 by way of enhancing the compensation of Rs. 12,82,552/- (Rupees twelve lakh eighty two thousand five hundred fifty two only) passed on 26.06.2020 by Sri Anshuman Chowdhury, the Ld. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC)48/2018 to the extent prayed by the appellant before the Ld. Tribunal otherwise the appellant would be highly prejudiced.' 8. The Appellant Insurance Company in Mac Appl No. 30 of 2020 has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'a) Admit the appeal; b) Call for the case records from the learned Tribunal below; c) Stay the operation of the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sri Anshuman Chowdhury) Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC)48 of 2018 and the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Id Tribunal, not to proceed with any execution proceeding if any filed by the claimant respondents in the meantime, till disposal of the present appeal. d) After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sri Ansuman Chowdhury) Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in Case No. TS.(MAC)48 of 2018 AND Pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper' 9. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Mac App No. 22 of 2021, and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in MAC App. No. 30 of 2020. 10. It is the case of the claimant-appellants that Chitta Ranjan Debnath (deceased herein) was working as a tailor and earning Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month. He died in the accident and, accordingly, the claim petition has been filed. Since, the proof of income has not been filed, the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income based on the notification of the State of Tripura dated 01.04.2020 and fixed Rs. 7,263/- per month and rounded off the figure upward to Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, learned Tribunal while considering Sarla Verma and Ors., v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 7,263/- per month and rounded off the figure upward to Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, learned Tribunal while considering Sarla Verma and Ors., v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , awarded Rs. 12,82,552/- as against the claim of Rs. 16,20,000/-. The claimant-appellants herein seeking enhancement has preferred the present appeal. 11. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits before this court that the vehicle number was not indicated when the accident has taken place and there was also no eye-witness. 12. This court is not inclined to accept the said argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company since the said argument has not been advanced before the learned Tribunal by the Insurance Company. In the counter affidavit filed by the Insurance Company, the averment with regard to the accident caused by the vehicle involved has not been denied. The other witnesses who were present before the learned Tribunal has not shaken in giving their deposition in favour of the claimants. In view of the above, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is negated. Further, if the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is tested in the light of the charge sheet filed and the investigation done, this argument of the insurance company has no weightage. 13. With regard to enhancement, this court finds that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal except while following Magma General Insurance Company (supra), the learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 25,000/- to each of the three dependants amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. The said head is incorrectly considered by the learned Tribunal. 14. As per Magma General Insurance Company (supra), the claimant-appellants No. 2 & 3 are the sons of the deceased and towards love and affection, they are entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and, accordingly, it comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only). Hence, the amount of Rs. 12,82,552/- which have been awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). Accordingly, it comes to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and, accordingly, it comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only). Hence, the amount of Rs. 12,82,552/- which have been awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). Accordingly, it comes to Rs. 13,07,552/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two only). 15. With the above observation and directions, the appeals are allowed in part and thus disposed of and as a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.