High Court
Case Details
MACApp. 70/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the claimant, in MAC Case No.534/1996, is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribun al, Kamrup at Guwahati, vide order dated 10.10.2002, whereby and whereunder an a mount of Rs.3,54,200/- has been awarded as compensation for the injuries sustain ed by the claimant/appellant along with the interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment and directing the respond ent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. to satisfy the said award, there being a contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle and the insu rance company. 2. The appellant as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,80,000/-, contending int er alia that on 27.04.1996 when he was travelling in the vehicle bearing Registr ation No.AS-01/D-0889 (Armada vehicle), a truck bearing Registration No.AS-01/C- 8623 driven in a rash and negligent manner and coming from the opposite directio n dashed against the Armada vehicle and as a result of which the appellant and o ther inmates of the said vehicle received grievous injuries and were hospitalize d. It has further been pleaded that the appellant was completely bed ridden sinc e the date of accident, who was advised absolute bed rest for 2(two) weeks, no w alk for 8(eight) weeks and to review after 8(eight) weeks. The further contentio n is that he has not recovered fully from the injuries and as a result of the in juries sustained on his right leg, he became permanently disabled. 3. The claim of the appellant has been opposed by the insurance company by filing written statement putting the claimant to prove his contention in the cla im petition.
Legal Reasoning
4. The appellant in order to prove his case examined 3(three) witnesses inc luding himself and proved 3(three) documents, namely, the first information repo rt lodged with Jagiroad Police Station on 27.04.1996 (Ext.-1), the charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency (Ext.-2) and the seizure list issued by the in vestigating agency (Ext.-3). The certificate relating to the 50% permanent disab lement has also been produced before the Tribunal. Neither the owner nor the ins urance company adduces any evidence. The witnesses examined by the appellant, ho wever, have been cross-examined by the insurance company. 5. The learned Member, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both or al and documentary, awarded an amount of Rs.3,54,137/- as compensation on the fo llowing breakup:- Pain and suffering Medical expenses Loss of amenities of life Loss of expectation of life Permanent disablement Misc. expenses Rs.1,00,000.00 - - Rs.1,00,000.00 Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 20,000.00 Rs. 34,137.00 Rs. 50,000.00 - - - - ce the present appeal by the claimant. The said amount, however, has been rounded to Rs.3,54,200/-. Hen Rs.3,54,137.00
Legal Reasoning
6. I have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.K . Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. None appears f or the other respondents despite service. 7. Neither the owner of offending vehicle nor the driver or the insurance c ompany have challenged the finding recorded by the learned Member, MACT in the a foresaid award dated 10.10.2002 passed in MAC Case No.534/1996 and hence they ha ve admitted the factum of accident, the injuries sustained by the appellant in t he said accident, the hospitalization, nature of injuries, the income and also t he contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle as well as t he respondent insurance company. Hence this Court need not go into the said aspe cts in the present appeal. 8. t of compensation awarded. As noticed above, the appeal has been filed for enhancement of the amoun 9. Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant referring to the impugn ed award has submitted that it appears therefrom that though the appellant has s uffered a lot because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident resulting in the 50% permanent disablement, only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000 /- for loss of expectation of life and permanent disablement, respectively, have been awarded, which requires enhancement at least by another Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing for th e respondent insurance company submits that in the absence of any proof relating to the permanent disablement suffered by the appellant, the learned Member ough t not to have awarded anything towards the permanent disablement. It has also be en submitted that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has rightly been awarded by the lea rned Member for loss of expectation of life. Hence according to the learned coun sel, the Tribunal has awarded the amount, which is more than the amount to which the appellant is entitled to. This Court, though on a number of occasions, had directed the Tribunal t 11. o send the record by special messenger, the said record has not been transmitted to the Registry of this Court, though the appeal is pending for last about 10(t en) years. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that as per their instruction, in fact, the record of MAC Case No.534/1996 is missing an d could not be traced out, which is the reason for which the said record has not been transmitted to the Registry of this Court. The learned counsel further sub mit that they do not have the copies of the depositions of the witnesses examine d in the Tribunal and also the documentary evidence proved before the Tribunal s o as to enable the Tribunal or this Court to reconstruct the record. That being the position, the appeal has to be taken up for hearing and disposal on the basi s of the materials made available before this Court along with memorandum of app eal, i.e. the award passed by the Tribunal alone. 12. It appears from the aforesaid award that the appellant in the said accid ent has suffered grievous injuries. There was fracture of the bone on the right hand as well as the right leg, apart from the injuries on the right eye lid. The appellant had to be hospitalized, immediately after the accident in HPC Hospita l, Jagiroad and later on he was admitted in Dispur Polyclinic, Guwahati, and was treated from 27.04.1996 to 20.05.1996. The appellant was operated upon twice, f irstly during his treatment for the aforesaid days and thereafter again in the m onth of July, 1996 in Dispur Polyclinic. During the course of treatment the plat es and the nails were also fixed to cure the fracture injury on the right leg, w hich were subsequently removed. The grafting on the right eye lid was also done twice in Dispur Polyclinic. It is also evident that the appellant was on bed res t for about 5(five) months, who, however, was subsequently selected and appointe d as Junior Engineer, in which post he joined on 02.04.1998. The appellant has a lso produced a permanent disablement certificate certifying his disablement as 5 0%, which, however, has not been proved. 13. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and a lso the duration of the treatment, I am of the view that the appellant would be entitled to a further lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards cost for further tr eatment etc., in addition to the amount which has already been awarded. 14. The appellant would, therefore, be entitled to an amount of Rs.4,04,200/ -. Since the amount of Rs.3,54,200/- has already been paid to the appellant alon g with the interest, the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the re spondent No.3 to the appellant with interest @9% per annum from the date of fili ng the claim application till the date of payment. The insurance company is dire cted to pay the said amount along with the interest accrued thereon within 1(one ) month from today. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above.