J. Lalhluna vs S.C. Lianmawia & Anr.

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The appellant has challenged the compensation amount awarded to him vide Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 24/2015. 3. The appellant''s counsel submits that the learned MACT, Aizawl, did not take into account the non-pecuniary damages that were to be awarded to the appellant as the matter pertains to personal injury. The second ground of challenge made by the appellant is to the effect that the learned MACT did not take into consideration the fact that the appellant was earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum from his Rice Mill. 4. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the learned MACT had calculated the appellant''s income @ Rs. 3,000/- per month (notional income) on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellant, which showed that the appellant while helping the appellant''s wife to run her shop, they were earning a profit of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 5. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no proof that the appellant was earning Rs. 1 lakh from his Rice Mill and no supporting evidence has been adduced in that respect. He also submits that the MACT need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of the supporting documents/evidence and it was the duty of the appellant to prove his case. 6. The respondent''s counsel also submits that the appellant has not been able to show that he is entitled to be given compensation on account of non-pecuniary damages, as there is no evidence to show that he has suffered from pain, suffering, trauma, loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life as a consequence of the injury sustained by him. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. With regard to the question of income, the learned MACT has taken the income of the appellant to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and awarded Rs. 3,33,486/- as compensation. 9. The breakup of compensation awarded to the appellant is reproduced below:

"(1) Loss of income = Rs.3000x12x17x20=36000 ------------------------------ 100

= Rs. 1,15,200/-

(2) Addition of 50% for future prospect = 1,15,200+57600 = 1,72,800

(3) Medical expenses = Rs. 1,60,686

Total = Rs. 3,33,486/-

The appellant in his evidence has stated that he is the owner of the Rice Mill from which he was earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum. The said evidence adduced by the appellant is not supported by any other evidence or documents. In the case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 13 SCC 236, the Apex Court has held that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting materials. 11. In view of the fact that the evidence of the appellant is not supported by any document or any other evidence, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the learned MACT in taking the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/-(notional income) per month. However, in respect of the claim of the appellant for payment of non-pecuniary damages, the documents on record suggest that the appellant''s left leg have been shortened and there might have been some injury to his spinal cord. This aspect is however needs to be proved by the appellant by way of examining the maker of medical certificate, i.e. the Doctor who issued Exhibit - C-10. 12. This Court is of the view that the maker of Exhibit - C-10 will have to be examined by the learned MACT to be able to come to a definite finding as to whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head; non-pecuniary damages. Accordingly, in view of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, this Court allows Exhibit - C-10 to be proved in the learned MACT. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned MACT so as to take the evidence of the maker of Exhibit - C-10. Thereafter, if the evidence adduced proves that non pecuniary damages have to be awarded, the learned MACT shall take into account the Judgments of the Apex Court passed in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Another, reported in 2014 5 SCC 330 and Jakir Hussein v. Sabir & Others, reported in 2015 7 SCC 252, regarding payment of compensation under nonpecuniary damages, with respect to personal injury cases. 13. The remanding of this case is only with respect to whether the appellant is liable to be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damages, besides the amount already awarded and given to the appellant. 14. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 15. Send back the LCRs.