AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhattacharya and Mandal, JJ.—This appeal along with cross-objection, being COT No. 31 of 2010, are taken up together. Although the original memorandum of the cross-objection is not available on record, let the copy of the memorandum of the cross-objection filed by Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the claimants, be kept with the record and be treated as original, so long the original is not found out.
This appeal is at the instance of the insurance company and is directed against an award dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Kolkata in M.J.C. Case No. 700 of 2006 thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation for the injury of the victim, which resulted from an accident, where the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant.
It appears from record that the victim was in the age group of 30-35 years and thus, the learned Tribunal below applied the multiplier of 17. The learned Tribunal below relied upon the certificate indicating that victim became disabled to the extent of 35 per cent and by treating his monthly income to be Rs. 3,000, the learned Tribunal below applied the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus, arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,14,200.
After arriving at such figure, the learned Tribunal below was of the view that since the victim had spent huge amount of money towards medical expenses, he should be given a total lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000. Thus, the balance amount of Rs. 85,800 was awarded towards the medical expenses.
Being dissatisfied, the insurance company has come up with the present appeal.
Mr. Ganguly, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the proceeding being one u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no scope of awarding any amount more than Rs. 15,000 as compensation towards the medical expenditure and thus, the learned Tribunal below erred in law in awarding a sum of Rs. 85,800 towards the medical expenditure.
Mr. Ganguly, therefore, prays for reducing the amount to Rs. 2,14,200 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 2,29,200 instead of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal below.
Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants and the cross-objectors has, however, vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Ganguly and has contended that according to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, in case of non-fatal injury, a claimant is entitled to get Rs. 15,000 as one time payment, but there is no bar of awarding further amount towards medical expenditure incurred subsequently.
We are afraid we are not at all impressed by such submission of Mr. Banik.
According to the Second Schedule to the Act, in case of death, the maximum amount is limited to Rs. 15,000 for the medical expenditure for the simple reason that in such proceeding, the victim or the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle. It is preposterous to suggest that although for the death of a victim the compensation towards the medical expenditure should be limited to Rs. 15,000, yet in case of nonfatal injury the amount can be unlimited, provided for each treatment, the maximum amount of Rs. 15,000 can be given.
It is apparent that the intention of the legislature was to limit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000 not only for the death case but also for the injury case, but the additional phrase ''as one time payment'' was included in the case of non-fatal injury lest any argument was advanced that for future medical expenditure further amount should also be payable.
We, therefore, find no merit in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Banik. We, however, find substance in the other contention of Mr. Banik raised in the cross-objection that a further amount of Rs. 5,000 was payable towards pain and suffering, as provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.
We, therefore, hold that in the fact of the present case, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 2,14,200 + Rs. 15,000 for medical expenditure + Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering = Rs. 2,34,200 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till such payment is made.
The award impugned is, thus, modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount as awarded by us by this order by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of respondent No. 1 at the address as given in the cause title of this appeal, namely, 33, Elliot Road, Kolkata-700016 within a month from today. After the said cheque is encashed by the respondent No. 1, the appellant will be entitled to realize the statutory deposit made while preferring the appeal.
Office is directed to release the amount once the document is shown indicating realization of the awarded amount by the respondent No. 1.
The appeal and the cross-objection are, thus, disposed of.
In view of disposal of the appeal and the cross-objection, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel appearing for the parties, within a week from the date of filing of the application.
Appeal allowed.