The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of appropriate compensation payable to a victim of permanent disablement arising out of a motor accident, emphasizing the principles laid down in relevant cases and the heads under which compensation should be awarded.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Sri Swarup Ghosh (hereafter the victim) in the early morning of March 12, 2007 was travelling in a trekker, bearing registration no. WB-57/3620 (hereafter the said trekker). At about 06.00 hours, the said trekker was stationary on N.H.-34 when a truck bearing registration no. WB-41B/8931 (hereafter the said truck) dashed it from behind. As a result of the collision, one passenger of the said trekker died instantaneously and several others were injured. The victim was one of them. All the injured were immediately shifted to local hospitals. The victim too was shifted to Berhampore New General Hospital on the same day. After treatment, the victim was discharged from the hospital nearly three months later, June 10, 2007 to be precise. As a result of the accident, the victim virtually lost his right leg which had to be amputated from below his thigh. Alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said truck, a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) was lodged by the victim on August 14, 2007 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Murshidabad, registered as M.V. Case No.266 of 2007. The insurers of the said trekker and the said truck, inter alia, were the respondents in such petition. It was claimed by the victim that he was aged 21 years and that working as a ‘khalasi’ of a trekker bearing no. WB-57/2603, owned by one Utpal Ghosh, he was in receipt of salary of Rs.3,200/- per month. Because of permanent disablement, the victim claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The insurer of the said truck contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. It denied the age of the victim (according to it, the victim was 17 years of age), that the victim was not a passenger of the said trekker, that he was not earning Rs. 3,200/, that the said truck was not involved in any accident on March 12, 2007, and that the victim was not a casualty of the alleged accident; if at all there was any accident, the driver of the said trekker was at fault. A written note of arguments had been filed on behalf of the victim (pages 45 to 47 of the LCR, ‘File C’) wherein certain judicial authorities were referred for consideration and compensation computed in the light thereof was claimed, being higher than the sum claimed in the claim petition. The tribunal by its award dated February 28, 2014 allowed the claim on contest against the insurer of the said truck and ex-parte against the insurer of the said trekker by awarding compensation of Rs.6,19,400/- to be paid within two months from date, failing which the awarded sum would carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization thereof. These appeals, at the instance of the award-holder (the victim) and the award-debtor (the insurer), are directed against the said award dated February 28, 2014.

2. On behalf of the appellant-insurer, Mr. Pahari, learned advocate has questioned the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal as payable to the victim. Ms. Ghosh, learned advocate for the appellant-victim has also assailed the method of computation of compensation by the tribunal. The effect of the arguments raised from the Bar is that we are spared the exercise of examining the evidence in detail to ascertain whether the tribunal was right in its finding that the victim suffered permanent disablement consequent to the concerned accident and that he is liable to be compensated. It is, therefore, time to consider whether the tribunal was justified in fastening the appellant-insurer with the liability of compensating the victim by determining Rs. 6,19,000/- as the sum payable, or should have awarded a higher sum.

3. We have for our guidance at least three decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 254 = (2011) 3 WBLR (SC) 894; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 = (2011) 1 WBLR (SC) 352 ; and Govind Yadav v. New India Assuran