IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for permanent disability must reflect its actual impact on the claimant's earning capacity, not merely the percentage of disability.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company/ Appellant and the COT appeal by the Respondent/Claimant/Injured being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06th June, 2016, passed by Judge, IXth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in M.A.C.C. No. 56 of 2005, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The Facts:-

“On 21.9.2004 in between 13.00 hrs to 13.15 hrs 19.15 hrs over J.L. Nehru Road in front of premises no. 38 while the applicant having completed his official duty was in the process of returning to his barrack and was walking from north to south direction keeping extreme left flank of the road, at that relevant time and place, the offending vehicle being a private bus bearing registration no. WBS-3749 was plying along the said road in the same direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and thereby when it reached the place of occurrence, loosing control over the speed and direction, it dashed and knocked down the applicant causing extensive damage and injuries to his person. Immediately thereafter he was removed to and admitted to S.S.K.M. College & Hospital for treatment. It is contended that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, the occurrence took place. It is contended that at the relevant time, he was engaged as a Nayek at Kolkata Armed Police and was physically strong and mentally alert. It is contended that commuted leave, earned leave, medical leave have been encashed during the tenure of complete bed riddenness of the applicant and due to such accident, he sustained mental pain and agony and damage on account of permanent disability. It is also contended that applicant earned Rs.8000/- p.m. from his service.”

3. Written Statement has been filed by O.P. no.2/National Insurance Co. Ltd. contending, inter alia, that the claimant has got no cause of action to file the claim application and that the defective application is not maintainable at all. O.P. has denied the contents of the claim application and also specifically denied that any accident occurred on 21.9.2004 in between 13.00 hrs to 13.15 hrs on J.L. Nehru Road near American Library or that the applicant earned Rs.8000/- p.m. O.P. has denied the several injuries over the Claimant’s body including compound fracture of the right shaft (femar) and multiple fracture left humerus causing permanent disablement of the applicant and stated that the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- is unjustified. O.P. no.2 has further denied that the vehicle bearing no. WBS- 3749(bus) was involved in the accident. As per version of O.P./Insurance Company, the claim application should be dismissed with costs.

4. The Claimant examined three witnesses and relevant documents have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 13.

5. The Insurance Company and owner (Opposite parties) did not adduce any evidence on their behalf but cross-examined the Claimant’s witnesses.

6. The Tribunal finally granted compensation as follows:-

“M.A.C.C. No. 56 of 2005

Dated: 06.06.2016

Taking into account and period of treatment etc, disability to the extent of 40%. I have already stated that income of the injured was Rs.75,984/- p.a. Now 40% of Rs.75,984/- is Rs.30,394/- to be multiplied by 13. So compensation is Rs.30,394/- X 13 = Rs.3,95,122/- has and the petitioner is entitled to get this amount. Petitioner filed money receipts against purchase of medicine etc. amounting to Rs.28, 500/- and as such he is also entitled to realize the amount i.e. in all (Rs.3, 95,122/- + Rs.28, 500/-) = Rs.4, 23,622/-.

I have gone through Exhibit 4 i.e. certificate of insurance issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd. In the instant case, occurrence took place on 21.9.2004. From Exhibit 4, it appears that offending vehicle was covered under valid certificate of insurance from 18.12.2003 to 17.12.2004. So, it is very clear that at the relevant time, vehicle was covered under Exhibit 4 issued by National Insurance