AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned judgement and award dated 28th November, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, B-
XII, City Civil Court, Calcutta in MJC Case No. 114 of 1997.
Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate for the appellant submits that it is injury case. The learned Judge erred in law by awarding monthly income as
Rs. 1,500/-. It should be Rs.3,000/-. It is submitted by Mr. Banik that only Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded for pains and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- has
been awarded towards medical expenses. The learned Tribunal arbitrarily awarded Rs. 30,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
Unfortunately, Rs. 2,75,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal wherefrom Rs.25,000/- was deducted as the appellant already received that amount in a
separate proceedings under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that Rs. 2,50,000/- was ultimately awarded by the learned Tribunal
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that no interest has been granted by the learned Tribunal. Only interest @ 12%
per annum was granted in default clause. Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Banik submits that Court should set aside the impugned judgement and award.
Per contra, Mr. S.N. Ganguly, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgement and award. It
is further submitted that the appellant failed to prove what type of business he was carrying on. In spite of that, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,500/- per
month as loss of income of the appellant. Therefore, the annual income assessed as Rs. 18,000/-. It is further submitted that Rs. 40,000/- has been
awarded for pains and sufferings and Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The learned Tribunal awarded
Rs. 25,000/-towards medical expenses. Therefore, in conclusion Mr. Ganguly submits that there is no ambiguity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgement and award dated 28th November, 2001.
Considering the submissions as advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, in our considered view, the appellant
failed to prove his nature of business. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month and the
annual income assessed as Rs. 18,000/-. We also find that Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded for pains and sufferings and Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded
towards medical expenses. We also cannot ignore the fact that Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant is not entitled to get enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. We also cannot
ignore the fact that no interest has been granted by the Tribunal. Only interest @ 12% per annum was granted in default clause.
Therefore, in our considered view, the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the awarded
amount was deposited.
Therefore, we direct the Insurance Company to take step to deposit the differential amount before the learned court below without any further delay
but positively within four weeks.
Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.