MAC CASE No. 598 of 2005 · Gauhati High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S TALAPATRA
Outcome
Partly allowed
For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to th
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. On consideration of the submission of Mr. A. Ahmed, learned coun sel appearing for the appellant as well as on perusal of the findings of the Tri bunal, this Court is of the considered opinion to revisit the mode of assessmen t of compensation…
Judgment
The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 22.10.2004 causing serious injuries to the minor son of the cl aim ants namely, Sri Niladri Baidya, involving the Auto Rickshaw bearing registra tion No.AS-11A/6491, which was being driven rashly and negligently and the insur ance cover of the said vehicle at the relevant time by the appellant are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal and as such those findings sta nd affirmed, requiring no further appraisal. The questions those are projected in this appeal are related to 4. the mode of assessing the compensation and consideration of the various componen ts by the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawing a ttention of this Court, has submitted that in support of the medical expenses, v ouchers amounting Rs.10,000/- was submitted in the Tribunal and in support of th e temporary physical disability, a certificate issued on 29.10.2005 by the Silch ar Medical College Hospital has been produced, which has been admitted as the Ex bt.-2 in the evidence, where it is found that the minor son of the claimant rece ived fracture in mandible and maxilla following the alleged road traffic acciden t and he suffered temporary physical disability to the extent of 40% approximate ly. It is also noted in the said certificate that the disability is partly corre ctable with proper treatment. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation has considered the base amount of Rs.25,000/-, which according to Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant is highly untenable. Another amount of Rs.25,000/- wa s added for pain and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- for expenditure incurred and to be incurred in future due to the accident. With this sum, another sum of Rs.20,0 00/- be added for loss of earning and Rs.20,000/- for loss of enjoyment of norma l natural life. Thus the total compensation was assessed at Rs.1,40,000/-. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily q uestioned the mode of assessment of the compensation and categorically submitted that such assessment requires to be interfered with.
Operative part
On consideration of the submission of Mr. A. Ahmed, learned coun sel appearing for the appellant as well as on perusal of the findings of the Tri bunal, this Court is of the considered opinion to revisit the mode of assessmen t of compensation in terms of the standards as espoused by the Apex Court. The claimant-respondent will be entitled to the following compon ents constituting the award for the injuries as received by his son : For pain and sufferings - For medical expenses - For loss of enjoyment in life For future treatment - Rs.25,000.00 Rs.10,000.00 - Rs.15,000.00 Rs.25,000.00 The total compensation, accordingly, comes at Rs.75,000/- (rupee s seventy five thousand)only. The said sum shall carry interest @ 6% per annum f rom the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to ma 7. ke payment of the awarded sum within a period of 2(two) months from today in the Tribunal after deducting the sum, if any, has been paid by now. The statutory d eposit be returned to the appellant for purpose of making the final payment in t he Tribunal. 8. e extent as indicated above. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to th
Send down the LCRs forthwith.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed to th
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.