K. J. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (Tenth Additional District Judge, Alipore) passed in proceeding under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Aet, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The appellant was the claimant before the learned court below which awarded a sum of Rs. 85,886 on account of compensation as against her claim of Rs. 5,00,000. The facts of the case involved in this appeal are stated in short hereunder: the appellant met with an accident on 5. 11. 1998 at about 11. 15 a. m. while she was travelling by autorickshaw and proceeding towards Pal Bazar, Behala, 24-Paraganas (South ). A Matador van bearing registration No. WB 03-A 0666 came from opposite direction and dashed against the autorickshaw in which she was travelling. She suffered fractures on six ribs on the right side and also sustained head injury. She was taken to A. M. R.. Hospital and she remained there for treatment from 5. 11. 1998 to 17. 11. 1998. After her release from A. M. R.. Hospital she felt that she had developed respiratory trouble on the right side and found her right hand had been impaired so much so that she could not lift or carry any object. She could not lie on her right side. She claimed she had to spend a sum of Rs. 50,000 for medical treatment because of the accident. She made the aforesaid claim in aggregate on account of shock, mental agony, loss of income and for other expenses. The claim was contested by National Insurance Co. Ltd. The appellant-claimant examined herself and also examined one Dipika Roy (Karmakar), an employee of the school in which she was an Assistant Teacher. A doctor, PW 3, was also examined who is said to have certified that the claimant had developed respiratory problems and had suffered partial and permanent disability of 50 per cent on account of the accident. He, however, said that he did not treat the claimant. That apart, another witness was examined who was a fellow passenger in the same autorickshaw.

( 2 ) INSURANCE company did not examine anyone.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, upon considering the respective pleadings, framed as many as six issues which are mentioned below: (1) Is the claim case maintainable? (2) Did the claimant Mukti Majumder sustain injuries in a motor accident? If so, what was the nature of injury? (3) Did the accident take place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver? (4) Was the vehicle No. WB 03-A 0666 involved in the accident? Was it duly insured? (5) Is the claimant entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? (6) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the claimant entitled?

( 4 ) IT appears from the impugned judgment and order that the learned trial Judge after deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant-applicant proceeded to deal with issue Nos. 2 to 6 collectively. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found that the autorickshaw and the said van were involved in the accident and such accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bigger vehicle. While awarding compensation, the learned trial Judge found that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant was assessable at 35 per cent and followed the structured formula as provided under section 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act. Following the structured formula, he awarded a sum of Rs. 94,080 being the non-pecuniary loss and damages and a sum of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 11,806 on account of pecuniary damages which included medical expenses and the loss of income during the period of the treatment. A sum of Rs. 25,000 paid under section 140 of the Act was deducted from the aggregate amount of compensation/award.

( 5 ) APPELLANT was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation on the ground that the nature of the injury and disablement entitled her to a larger sum.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Krishanu Banik appearing for the appellant, contend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document