AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. A. Shakil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
This appeal is filed by the claimant on being dissatisfied with the award given to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dubhri in MAC Case No. 298/2015 awarding him a total amount of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application i.e., 17.10.2015 and therefore, the appellant seeks enhancement of the award.
Brief facts of the case is that on 14.04.2015 at about 1:30 PM, the appellant was travelling as a passenger in a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-17/7874 and was on his way from Agomani Bazar to Belguri. On arriving at Belguri Part-I on National Highway-31, the driver of the vehicle by applying brake stopped the vehicle suddenly. The appellant who was sitting by the side of the door fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to Dhubri Civil Hospital and admitted as an indoor patient for 9 (nine) days. As a result of the accident, the appellant lost 8 teeth and as such he filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the opposite party i.e., the Oriental Insurance Company who are arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the present appeal.
During the claim proceedings, the appellant examined himself as well as his wife Joynob Bibi as claimant's witness Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident filed their written statements but did not adduce any evidence apart from cross examining the claimant's witnesses. Consequently, the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 27.10.2017 disposed of the claim by awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application. As already stated hereinabove, the appellant being dissatisfied with the awarded amount has filed the instant appeal.
Mr. S. Rahman, the learned counsel submits that considering the nature of the accident, the pain and suffering faced by the appellant as well as his hospitalization for a period of 9 days, the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is very much on the lower side. The learned counsel by referring to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence on record as well as the documents submitted by the claimant. The learned Tribunal also did not make any distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages entitled to the appellant. He submits that the strict Rules of evidence as per the Evidence Act, 1872 would not apply to a claim under the MV Act, 1988. Such claim being under the beneficial legislation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a reasonable amount of compensation to the appellant and not just Rs. 35,000/-, which is only a negligible sum.
Under the facts and circumstances, he submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal may be suitably enhanced by this Count. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed his reliance upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench High Court) rendered on 05.09.2000 in MA No. 462 to 467 of 1997 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kans Ram & Ors.).
Mrs. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has paid the appellant a total amount of Rs. 41,386/- on 29.11.2017. She submits that the said sum includes the amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the interest calculated from the date of filing their claim up to the date of payment of compensation.
By referring to the written statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the learned counsel submits that the Insurance Company disputed the maintainability of the claim application and also denied the fact that the claimant sustained injury in the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned. However, despite the stand of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant that the awarded amount has already been paid to the claimant on 29.11.2017.
The learned counsel, Mr. A. Shakil appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that since the accident vehicle was validly insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident, they have no liability to pay compensation to the appellant. The awarded amount in fact has already been satisfied and as such, the appeal may be dismissed.
I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the LCR requisitioned from the Tribunal.
As may be noticed, the point to be considered is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement or not. The appellant examine himself as the claimant witness no. 1. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 14.04.2015, while he was proceeding from Agomani Bazar to Belguri as a passenger of vehicle under registration No. AS-17/7874 (Savari), the vehicle stopped suddenly on reaching Belguri Part-I in National Highway-31. As a result, he fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of the said vehicle. As a result of his injury, he was taken to Dhubri Civil Hospital for treatment, wherein he remained as an indoor patient for 9 days i.e., w.e.f., 14.04.2015 to 24.04.2015. The nature of injury sustained by him includes fracture of upper four and lower four teeth, missing one upper front tooth and mobile one upper tooth. The injury sustained by him has affected his brain and he had to undergo CT Scan. As a labourer, he was earning Rs. 8000/- per month but due to the injury sustained by him he could not perform his normal routine of work and also lost the capacity of earning in future. During the course of his treatment, he spent about Rs. 1 lakh for special food and nutrition, transportation and attendant charge besides his medical treatment. As such, he claimed a sum of Rs. 7 lakh as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application. In his cross examination, he reiterated what he stated in the examination-in-chief. He also stated that the injury sustained by him is not attributable to any negligence on his part. The wife of the appellant Joynob Bibi was also examined as claimant witness No. 2 and she made similar deposition like that of the appellant both in her examination-in-chief as well as her cross examination.
As already noticed, the respondent Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the accident vehicle, besides filing the written statement did not lead any evidence but however, cross examined the two claimant witnesses. The evidence of the claimant is neither demolished nor falsified by the opposite parties and it is also an admitted fact that neither the Insurance Company nor the owner and driver of the vehicle concerned have filed an appeal against the judgment and award. Rather the Insurance Company has satisfied the award. The Tribunal framed 4 issues but while deciding the same, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were clubbed together and similarly issue Nos. 3 and 4 were also clubbed together. By deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant, the Tribunal held that the appellant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned. As for the issue Nos. 3 and 4, which was basically on the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-+25,000/- towards the treatment undergone by the appellant as an indoor patient as compensation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim was also awarded by the Tribunal.
The claim application was filed under Section 166 of the MV, 1988 i.e., on fault basis. In absence of any appeal against the finding of the Tribunal, it must be accepted that fault on the part of the offending vehicle has been established as held by the Tribunal. Since the vehicle was undisputably insured with the Insurance Company on the day of the accident, the Insurance Company will only be liable to pay the compensation. While fixing the quantum of the compensation, it is seen that the Tribunal did not indicate the basis on which the amount was fixed. In Kans Ram & Ors (Supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) awarded a sum of Rs. 57,000/- to the claimant for having lost 5 teeth. In the present case, the appellant has lost 8 teeth. Although the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not reveal the basis on which the amount of Rs. 57,000/- was awarded to the claimant therein but having regard to the fact that there is no dispute about the matter of injury sustained by the appellant and his hospitalization for about 8 days, I am of the considered view that the amount of compensation requires enhancement.
Accordingly, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is ordered accordingly.
The respondent No. 1 Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 25,000/-before the Registry of this Court, within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On such deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant on proper identification and as per usual formalities. The amount shall not carry any interest if the same is deposited within the prescribed time. However, if the same is not deposited within the prescribed time, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from today till final realization.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry shall send back LCR to the Tribunal immediately.