Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dipen Chandra Das and Ors

Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant, namely, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. impugning the judgment and award dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon in MAC (Injury) Case No. 23/2015, whereby the present appellant has been directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.27,46,124/- to the claimant/respondent along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent No. 1/claimant had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, which occurred on 24.11.2014 at about 12:00 noon on National Highway, in front of the main entrance gate of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad. It has been stated by the present respondent No. 1/claimant, in his application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, that on the fateful day, i.e., on 24.11.2014, he was going from Jagiroad towards his house on a motorcycle as a pillion rider. The motorcycle was having Registration No. AS-01-V-3346, when they reached in front of the main entrance gate of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad, one indigo car bearing Registration No. AS-12-L-6713, coming from the same direction at a very high speed, hit the said motorcycle from the back side. As a result of which, both the driver as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down. They sustained injuries on different parts of their body. Immediately, both of them were taken to Nagaon Paper Mill, Hospital, and from there, they were referred to Pratiksha Hospital, Guwahati, considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by them.

The claim case filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant was registered as MAC (Injury) Case No. 23/2015. The present appellant as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle contested the case by filing written statements, wherein they denied their liability to compensate the present appellant on account of the aforementioned accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, after going through the pleadings of both the parties, framed the following issues:

In support of his case, the claimant examined three witnesses, i.e., he himself adduced evidence as PW-1 and one eyewitness as PW-2, and one doctor as PW-3. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in the said inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Ultimately, by the judgment and award, which has been impugned in this appeal, the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant was allowed, and he was awarded compensation in the manner has already been described in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.

It is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of this appeal. the Insurance Company/appellant had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for allowing the appellant to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage. It prayed for allowing the appellant to bring on record certain documents, like RTI reply given by the Officer-in-Charge of Jagiroad Police Station along with GD Entry No. 687 and 692, pay slip of the respondent No. 1 and hospital reports given by Medical Superintendent, Pratiksha Hospital.

Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has also alleged fraud on the part of the claimant in suppressing some vital documents from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, during the enquiry. As such, she submits that to prove the allegation of fraud, the documents, which are intended to be brought on record by way of additional evidence are required to be placed before the Court. As such, she submits that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 submitted by the appellant may be allowed. She also submits that the appellant could not have produced these documents before the Tribunal in spite of due diligence on their part.

She further submits that even from the documents, which are exhibited by the respondent No. 1, the fraud played upon the Tribunal is apparent. She submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon has erred in awarding the compensations to the claimant on account of loss of earning capacity, without there being any material on record to suggest that the respondent No. 1/claimant has suffered from any loss of earning capacity.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no income certificate or salary slip has been exhibited by the claimant/respondent No.1 before the Tribunal to establish that his income, at the time of accident, was Rs. 35,000/- per month. She submits that apart from oral testimony, nothing has been brought on record regarding the income of the respondent No. 1/claimant. She further submits that though, the claimant/respondent No. 1, while deposing as PW-1 has deposed that he has applied for voluntary retirement, however, no documents to that effect could be produced before the Tribunal and there is no material on record, which indicates that the respondent No. 1 had been allowed to take voluntary retirement and, on that account, he had suffered any pecuniary loss. She submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity to the tune of Rs. 23,10,000/- without there being any material to substantiate the same on record. She further submits that during his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that after the accident he joined his services, which itself indicates that he was not released on voluntary retirement and there was no loss of any earning capacity.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the only evidence on record regarding loss of income is regarding his absence from service for a period of five months during which period, he was not paid any salary. However, he has not produced any documentary evidence to that effect. She further submits that the discharge certificate, which was exhibited as Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7 indicates that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was admitted in the hospital on the date of accident i.e., 24.11.2014 and he was released there from on 30.11.2014. As such, she submits that there may be loss of income for only these six days.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the claimant/respondent has committed fraud upon the Tribunal by suppressing the fact that the injury sustained by him on his leg was due to an earlier accident, which occurred in the month of June 2014. She further submits that even on perusal of the discharge and disability certificate, which is exhibited as Exhibit-41, it appears that the said certificate was issued as the claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered from locomotive disability on account of shortening and deformation of both legs following fracture of lower limbs due to RTA. However, she submits that on perusal of the discharge certificate, which is exhibited as Exhibit-6, it appears that on 24.11.2014, he was diagnosed with a fracture spine D12. She also submits that even the MRI reports, which are exhibited as Exhibit-9(1) and Exhibit-9(2) it suggests that the claimant sustained burst fracture of D12, as such, she submits that the injuries sustained by the claimant on 24.11.2014 was only in respect of spine, i.e., he sustained only spinal injuries.

She further submits that the discharge certificate exhibited by the claimant/respondent No.1 as Exhibit-6 also indicate that on 24.11.2014, the doctors while recording the past history of the ailments of the claimant/respondent No. 1 indicated that one closed tibia nailing and fibula plating was done on the claimant in the month of June 2014. She, therefore, submits that the injury sustained by the claimant on his legs was prior to the accident, which occurred on 24.11.2014.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that that Exhibit-6 also indicates that there might not be any injuries due to road traffic accident as the said exhibit, while recording history of the patient, indicates that there is an alleged history of fall on that day at about 12 p.m. at Jagiroad, without specifically indicating that the patient suffered injury in a road traffic accident. She submits that had the claimant/respondent No. 1 met with an accident on that day, it would have been clearly recorded in the medical document, which is exhibited as Exhibit-6. She, therefore, submits that the disability certificate exhibited as Exhibit-41 and the evidence of doctor to that effect pertains to injury suffered by the claimant/respondent No. 1 prior to 24.11.2014 and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation on that account.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding a compensation amount of Rs. 3,76,124/- to the claimant against medical expenses. She submits that the medical bills/prescriptions/vouchers exhibited as Exhibit-9 series and Ext. 10 series, by the claimant before the Tribunal are all photostat copies and the claimant has not been able to satisfy the pre-requisite conditions as mentioned in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, before adducing the secondary evidence.

She submits that though, the claimant has stated that the said documents were submitted before the Jagiroad Paper Mill Authorities for allowing the claimant to go on voluntary retirement. However, as no documents regarding voluntary retirement could be produced by the claimant/respondent No. 1, there is a probability that he might have reimbursed the said medical bills from his employer and, as such, no compensation should be awarded against medical expenses also.

She further submits that the medical vouchers and documents exhibited as Exhibit-9 series and Exhibit-10 series, includes expenses incurred by the claimant not only for the spinal injuries, which he sustained on 24.11.2014, but also for the injuries sustained by him in his earlier accident and, as such, he is not entitled to get reimbursement regarding all the medical expenditure indicated by the documents exhibited by him before the Tribunal.

In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following rulings:

On the other hand, Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has fairly submitted that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was not allowed to go on voluntary retirement and, as such, apart from the dates, on which he could not attend his duties for which he was not paid any salary he did not suffer any loss of earnings. However, he submits that considering the seriousness of injuries sustained by him and period for which he had to abstain from his duties as a result of which, he did not get salary for the said period, his loss of income may be assessed on a lump sum basis taking his absence from service for a period of one year.

He further submits that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation against conventional head on a much lower side and same is required to be enhanced though, there is no cross objection on the side of the claimant. He submits that in a fit case, even in absence of a cross objection if the Court deems it proper to enhance the compensation against a particular head, it can do so.

In support of his submission, he has cited the ruling of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus T. Khan Bala, and others reported in 2014 2 GLT 855 as well as another ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors. and others reported in 2015 1 TAC 673 SC.

He further submits that no fraud has been played upon the Court as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that in the instant case, due to reasons stated in the complaint filed by the son of the claimant, the FIR could not be filed on the date when the accident occurred i.e., on 24.11.2014, however, belatedly, the son of the claimant filed a complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigoan, which was directed to be registered as an FIR.

The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that on the basis of the said FIR, an investigation was initiated and ultimately, the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle, which indicates to the truthfulness of the contentions raised by the claimant in his claim petition. He further submits that even the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, who were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in the MAC Case No.23/2025 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon had in their written statement admitted the fact of accident. He further submits that even the present appellant in Ground No. E of the Memo of Appeal had indicated the fact that the appellant also admits that the accident occurred on 24.11.2014.

He submits that apart from the above, one independent eyewitness was also examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, who had deposed regarding the fact of the accident. He further submits that as regards the fact that the claimant could not produce original documents before the Tribunal, reason for the same has been stated by the claimant while deposing as PW-2 in his oral testimony to the effect that the originals of the said documents had to be deposited with his application for voluntary retirement, as such, he could not submit original documents before the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.-1/claimant further submits that at the time of exhibiting photocopies of the documents exhibited as Exhibit-87 to Exhibit-115 Exhibit-9 (4 series and 10 series), no objection was raised by the counsel of the Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, neither the PW-1 was confronted on this point by the counsel of the Insurance Company, as such, he submits that at this stage the Insurance Company cannot take that plea.

He further submits that the compensation awarded to the claimant on account of pain and suffering is only a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which is required to be enhanced to minimum Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the seriousness of the injury sustained by the claimant/respondent. He further submits that the compensation awarded against other conventional heads like transportation, diet and litigation costs is also required to be enhanced. He, therefore, submits that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 further submits that though, the claimant had met with an accident on earlier occasion also, however, he again sustained injuries on his both limbs due to the accident, which occurred on 24.11.2014, which is apparent from Exhibit-5, which is the Referral Form issued by the Jagiroad Paper Mill Hospital, which indicates that the claimant suffered from road traffic accident followed by the injury and restriction of movement of lower limbs and was advised for orthopedic consultation. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the injuries sustained by the claimant on 24.11.2014 had to be treated for a long period thereafter, and in that regard, he was also operated upon on 04.05.2016, which is indicated by the Exhibit-9 (12). Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for claimant submits that the contentions raised by the appellant Insurance Company in this appeal deserves to be rejected and this appeal may be dismissed with cost.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also gone through the materials available on record including the case record of MAC Case No. 23/2015. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the claimant sustained injuries as a result of motor vehicular accident that took place on 24.11.2014 at about 12:00 noon on the National Highway in front of the main entrance gate of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad under Jagiroad Police Station and has correctly computed the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant by the present appellant.

Before we consider the rival contentions of the parties in this appeal, let us first consider the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 3783/2018 filed by the appellant in the instant appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby the appellant has prayed for adducing additional evidence in the appellate stage.

It is contended by the appellant in the aforesaid interlocutory application that the claimant-respondent has played fraud upon the Court by making false statement as regards to his injury, as well as the loss of his earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

The appellant has sought leave to produce a copy of hospital report given by Medical Superintendent, Pratiksha Hospital as regards admission of the appellant in the said hospital with regard to some other accident from 20.06.2014 to 27.06.2014. The appellant has also sought to produce the RTI reply given by Officer-in-Charge of Jagiroad Police Station along with GD Entry No. 687 and GD Entry No. 692 dated 24.11.2014. The appellant has also sought to produce the letter dated 20.08.2018 and 23.08.2018, as well as salary certificate by DGM (HR & ES), to show that the appellant was getting his salary even after the accident.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that said documents could not be produced by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, during the inquiry, as the dealing advocate of the company did not take any steps to adduce evidence on behalf of company.

For the sake of convenience, the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced here in below: -

On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the Appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced only if it falls within one of the three specific clauses as provided under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Firstly, the Appellate Court may allow additional evidence if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. This principle applies when a party sought to produce relevant evidence during the original trial, but the Trial Court wrongfully rejected or excluded it. The second ground where the appellate court may allow adducing additional evidence at appellate stage is if the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by them at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. The party must prove that evidence was unavailable despite best efforts during the trial. The last contingency under which the Appellate Court may allow additional evidence is if it requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause.

In the instant case, however, the only reason stated by the appellant in the aforementioned Interlocutory Application is that on receipt of the judgment, the appellant company came to know that the dealing advocate did not take any steps to adduce evidence on behalf of company to prove that the fraud was played upon the court by the claimant.

This Court is unable to accede to the contention of the appellant in the connected Interlocutory Application that merely because it came to know that the dealing advocate did not take any steps to adduce evidence on behalf of appellant company, it may be allowed to adduce evidence at the appellate stage. It has failed to convince this Court that, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced by the appellant during the inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The contentions raised by the appellant in the Interlocutory Application itself is apparent to indicate that there has been lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant insurance company in producing the documents sought to be produced at the appellate stage during the inquiry before the Tribunal.

The provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not be used by a party which failed to establish their case initially before the Tribunal during the appellate proceeding as a second chance to build a better case. Merely attributing entire negligence on the engaged counsel of the appellant insurance company during the inquiry would not absolve the appellant insurance company to show that, in spite of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them during inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Moreover, this Court is also of the considered opinion that there are sufficient materials on record for this Court to arrive at a just conclusion and to pronounce a judgment in this appeal. As such, the prayer of the appellant to allow it to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage is hereby rejected.

Now, let us examine as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct in coming to a conclusion that the claimant sustained injuries as a result of motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.11.2014 at about 12:00 noon on National Highway in front of the main entrance gate of the Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad, under Jagiroad Police Station, involving Indigo car bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713.

If we peruse the evidence of PW-1, that is the claimant himself, as well as the evidence of PW-2, who is the eye-witness to the accident, it appears that both of them have stated in their testimony that when the claimant was riding as a pillion in the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01B-3346 and reached in front of the main entrance gate of HPCL, Jagiroad on the National Highway at about 11:00 AM on 24.11.2014, an Indigo car bearing registration number AS-12L-6713 being driven at a very high speed hit the motorcycle which was standing by the side of the National Highway to reach the service road, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries on his person and he was immediately brought to HPCL Hospital with the help of police. This testimony of the claimant (PW-1) as well as the eye-witness, that is PW-2, could not be demolished by the Insurance Company during their cross-examination. Further, Exhibit-3, which is the charge-sheet laid against the driver of the Indigo car bearing registration number AS-12L-6713 in connection with the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014, also fortifies the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the fact of the accident. Moreover, from Exhibit-5, it appears that the claimant was referred by HPCL Hospital, Nagaon Paper Mill on 24.11.2014 to the Pratiksha Hospital, Guwahati, and Exhibit-6 indicates that the claimant was admitted in Pratiksha Hospital on 24.11.2014 with acute pain in lumbar region and numbness and tingling sensation in both the lower limbs.

The fact that in Exhibit-6 it has been stated that the patient had alleged history of fall at around 12:00 PM at Jagiroad and did not mention therein that the accident occurred due to road traffic accident, is itself not sufficient to come to a finding that the fall about which mention is there in Exhibit-6 is not from the motorcycle at the time of accident, but it is somewhat other fall. Moreover, when in the discharge certificate of the Pratiksha Hospital it has clearly been stated that the complainant was admitted with chief complaints of numbness and tingling sensation in both extremities with alleged history of road traffic accident on 24.11.2014, no doubt remains regarding accident which occurred on 24.11.2014. As such, in view of the uncontroverted oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the exhibits namely, Exhibit-2 i.e., the FIR, Exhibit-3 that is the charge-sheet against the driver of the Indigo car, and Exhibit-6 that is the discharge certificate from Pratiksha Hospital, there remains no doubt that the claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving Indigo car bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713 on 24.11.2014 in front of the main entrance gate of the HPCL, Jagiroad.

From above material, it is also clear that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Indigo vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713 that the accident occurred and, as such, the Tribunal was right in attributing negligence on the said driver and, consequently, holding that it is the present appellant which is liable to pay compensation to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicular accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

Now, let us examine as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct in relying on Exhibit-11 Disability Certificate to come to a finding that the claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

If we examine the Exhibit-11 Disability Certificate, it appears that the Disability Certificate was issued on the ground of shortening and deformity of both the legs following multiple fracture of lower limb due to road traffic accident. However, if we peruse the Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7, which are the discharge certificates issued by Pratiksha Hospital, it appears that the claimant was diagnosed with compression fracture spine D12 and no fracture of any lower limb was diagnosed. It also appears from the said exhibit that earlier, in the month of June 2014, the claimant sustained injuries in his legs and surgical procedure involving closed tibia nailing and fibula plating was done at that point of time. Thus, it becomes clear that the injury sustained in his legs was sustained in the month of June 2014 and not in the month of November 2014 which pertains to the accident involving Indigo car bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713. The Disability Certificate, which is exhibited as Exhibit-11, is only in relation to the fractures sustained by the claimant in his legs resulting in shortening of his legs, and the materials on record indicate that such fracture was sustained by him in the month of June 2014 and not in November 2014 when he met with the accident involving Indigo car. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the disability to the extent of 50% of the claimant was as a result of accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

Now, let us discuss as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claimant suffered from loss of earning capacity due to injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident which occurred on 24.11.2014. From the evidence of claimant (PW-1), it becomes clear that he was an employee of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad and was drawing a salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. It also appears that though the claimant has claimed that he applied for voluntary retirement, however, there is nothing on record to show that he was allowed to go on voluntary retirement by his employer. Rather, the learned counsel for the claimant has fairly submitted during argument in this appeal that he was actually not allowed to go on voluntary retirement. As such, even after the accident, the claimant continued to be the employee of Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad and there is no evidence on record to suggest that he was not given his monthly salary regularly by the employer. As such, the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that claimant suffered from loss of earning capacity as a result of injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014. Hence, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation against the head "Loss of Earning Capacity".

As regards the fact of expenses incurred by the claimant on medical expenses due to the treatment taken by him for injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014, he has exhibited photocopies of medical bills and cash memos as Exhibit-9 series and Exhibit-10 series. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prerequisite conditions as laid down in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act were not fulfilled by the claimant before adducing photocopies of the medical bills and cash memos as Exhibit-9 series and Exhibit-10 series, this Court is of the considered opinion that the PW-1 has categorically stated in his deposition that since the original medical bills and cash memos were submitted along with application for voluntary retirement, same could not be produced before the Tribunal in original and as such, photocopies of same were produced. It also appears that on this point no cross-examination was done by the Insurance Company while cross-examining the PW-1. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that there was no error on the part of the Tribunal in relying on the Exhibit-9 series and Exhibit-10 series.

However, the claimant will be entitled to compensation against medical expenses incurred by him only for the injuries which he sustained in accident which occurred on 24.11.2014 and not for any other injuries. On perusal of the documents exhibited as Exhibit-9 series and Exhibit-10 series, it appears that apart from the expenses incurred by him for treatment of his injuries in the month of November 2014 and December 2014, he has also exhibited documents for an operation performed on him on 04.05.2016 for left tibia and fibula fracture, which was not caused due to the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014. As such, he is not entitled to compensation against some of the medical bills which he has exhibited before the Tribunal during the inquiry.

On perusal of the Exhibit-9(12), it clearly appears that the claimant went to the Pratiksha Hospital on 04.06.2016 with complaint of pain in the area of operation at left ankle, operated on 04.05.2016 for left tibia and fibula fracture. Thus, it becomes clear that on 04.05.2016 the claimant was again operated for tibia and fibula fracture. However, from the testimony of PW-1, it becomes clear that he was operated only for spinal cord in connection with the injuries, which he sustained in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

On perusal of the medical vouchers, it appears that only Exhibit-10(1), which is cash memo for Rs. 31,817/-, and Exhibit-10(2), which is the medical bill for Rs. 1,93,634/-, are for the period of November 2014 and December 2014, which may relate to the treatment of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014. All other exhibits are in connection with treatment which the claimant took for pain and discomfort in his legs in the month of May 2016 and June 2016, and as the said injuries were not sustained by the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014, he is not entitled to get compensation for the said expenses in the claim case which was filed only with regard to the accident which occurred on 24.11.2014.

In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in the impugned judgment and award by directing the Insurance Company/respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 27,46,124/- as compensation to the claimant, wherein it took into consideration the compensation on account of loss of income and it took into account all the medical vouchers included in Exhibit-10 series.

After taking into consideration the conclusions arrived at by this Court in view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the compensation payable to the claimant by the respondent Insurance Company, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on 24.11.2014, involving the Indigo car bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713, which was insured by the respondent Insurance Company, is computed as follows: -

Total: Rs. 3,10,451/-

(Rupees Three Lakh Ten Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-One Only)

The claimant is, thus, entitled to get a compensation amount of Rs. 3,10,451/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ten Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-One Only) alongwith an interest @ 9% per annum form the date of filing of claim petition till realization from the respondent namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, i.e., the insurer of Indigo vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12L-6713.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of this judgment. On such deposit being made, same shall be disbursed to the claimant after proper verification.

The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant at the time of filing this appeal shall be returned back to the appellant after proper verification.

Let the records of MAC Case No. 23/2015 be sent back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon along with a copy of this judgment.

This appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed in terms of the observations made hereinabove.