MACApp. 82/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned v. Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident
Case Details
MACApp. 82/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta and Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-U nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the M. V. Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Karimganj in MACT Case No.85 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the appellant. While rejecting the claim, the Tribunal has observed that there is no bo dily injury as per provisions of Section 166(1)(a) of the M. V. Act, 1988 and fo r want of evidence the claimant is not entitled to get the compensation.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant while criticising the finding of the Tribunal submitted that this finding is the result of glaring non-readin g of the evidence or perverse reading of the evidence. If the evidence is proper ly appreciated it would transpire that the appellant suffered bodily injury and there is medico-legal report from the police in the charge-sheet as filed in GR Case No.537 of 2006 against the motor cyclist namely Shri Subrata Dey. In the ch arge-sheet the police has reproduced the medical report which runs as under: MEDICO LEGAL REPORT Ref: Karimganj P.S. GDE No.293 dt. 11-4-06. Name: Sri Uttam Dey 22 yrs. S/O Sri Upendra Dey Durlavchera P.S. Rataba ri. C/O Popular Tailoring. Sibbari Road, Karimganj. Date & time of exam: 10-4-06 at 6-25 P.M. C/O Vehicular accident on 08-4-06 at around 7 P.M. following which havin g head ache. Tr. history: Initially treated by Dr. P. Dev Gupta Eye Specialist & Dr. B. C. Bhattacharjee, M.D. O/E - Blackened eye left. Laceration of 11/2 (cid:29) X skin depth On left side of face, placed horizontally. Pt. was admitted in MSCO Further report may be collected from respective department. Apart that, from the various other medical reports it surfaced that the claimant suffered bodily injury and incapacitation for the said injury. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the discharge certificate as issu ed by the Karimganj Civil Hospital (Exbt.4), the discharge certificate as issued by the Ishita/Sunlit Hospital, Silchar (Exbt.6), Prescriptions cum advise slips issued by the Ishita/Sunlit Hospital, Silchar (Exbt.7), Prescriptions cum advis e slips issued by the GNRC and the discharge certificate as issued by the GNRC ( Exbt.11). The learned counsel for the appellant further related to the prescriptio ns to reveal the nature of treatment provided to the appellant after the acciden t. Appearing for the respondent No.2, Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel submit ted that the diverge opinions as gathered from the medical records strike at the root of the claim. So many versions as emerged from the records, the FIR and th e Accident Information Report generated incredulity and clouded the truthfulness of the claim. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Having thus persuaded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties t his Court has scrutinized the evidence as available with the records. From the A ccident Information Report (Exbt.16), which was filed by the police on 23.06.200 6 it appears that the claimant met with the accident for rash and negligent driv ing of the motor cycle bearing registration No.AS-10-7737 and in the ejahar (Exb t.17), the content of the Accident Information Report got corroborated. The Poli ce Report (the charge-sheet) as filed by the police in GR Case No.537 of 2006 ha s further buttressed the claim of the appellant. Therefore, there cannot be any confusion about the accident. Further, it appears to this Court that for serious ness of the injuries, the appellant was prevented from carrying on his occupatio n. Apart that, it transpires from the Exbt.11 that the claimant (cid:28)was initially t reated at Karimganj Civil Hospital and then Sunlit Hospita, Silchar and finally brought to GNRC (cid:29) for the post traumatic headache. Thereafter, he was advised to attend the said institute of neurological sciences for review in the Neuro Surge ry Department after four weeks from the date of discharge i.e. 15.06.2006. A cumulative reading of these medical reports would substantiate that th e appellant was uninterruptedly under the medical surveillance from 10.04.2006 to 12.06.2006 in different hospitals. Even thereafter, he was advised to attend the hospital for review to ascertain the progress of recuperation. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to affirm the findings of the Tribunal. As corollary to this, the findings of the Tribunal are interfered with and set aside. It appears from the records that the appellant on 08.04.2006 at about 6. 30 evening when he was progressing towards the tailoring unit where he was emplo yed was hit by the motor cyclist from behind. On 09.04.2006 on advice of the doc tors he was admitted in the Karimganj Civil Hospital and from there, he was refe rred to Silchar Medical College & Hospital. Since at Silchar Medical College & H ospital, there is no facility of CT Scan of brain, he was referred for that purp ose to the Ishita Hospital. On consideration of the gravity of the injury he was advised to attend the GNRC (the Neurological Centre) for further treatment. The appellant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as the medical expenses and Rs.3,53, 000/- as the total compensation. But the vouchers as admitted in the evidence do justify an expense to the extent of Rs.41,738/- which the appellant incurred in defraying the charge of conveyance and the cost of medicines. For medical expense = Rs.50,000’00, inclusive of the cost of medicines a Taking a cumulative view of the medical records and the evidence as prod uced by the appellant, this Court is inclined to assess the compensation in the following terms: (a) nd conveyance. (b) (c) (d) For pain and sufferings = Rs.30,000’00. For loss of future amenities = Rs.30,000’00 and For loss of wages = Rs.6,000’00. Thus, the total compensation is assessed at Rs.1,16,000/- and the said s um shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim peti tion till the deposit is made. Since the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motor cycle, t he awarded sum shall be satisfied by them within a period of two months from tod ay by making the deposit in the Tribunal. After such deposit is made, it is need less to say, the appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the amount on proper i dentification.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. H owever, there shall be no order as to cost. Send down the LCRs forthwith.