JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present claim appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 19^th February, 2011, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District and Session Judge, 9^th Fast Track Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in MAC Case No. 01 of 2010, under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.

2. FACTS :-

“……On 24.06.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. the driver of the offending vehicle no. WB23A 1855 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed victim Ranjan Kayal while he was coming towards Sagar from Kachuberia side on foot in the extreme left side of non metallic portion of the road and as a result he sustained severe injuries on his person causing permanently disablement. At the time of the alleged incident he was aged about 21 years and he was a student of Mohananda Vidyamandir and his yearly income was Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income……….”

3. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e. O.P. No. 1 did not contest the case.

4. O.P. No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company contested the case by filing a W.S. denying all the material allegations made in the petition contending inter alia that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case, claim is barred by law of limitation and also bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. Facts stated in the petition are false and petitioner is bound to prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence. Claim is excessive, high and without any basis. He further stated that the victim himself was responsible for the alleged accident. He prayed for dismissal of the case.

5. The claimant/injured examined himself as P.W. 1 in the present case and the relevant documents have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 17.

6. On considering the materials and evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held as follows :-

“……….MAC Case No. 01 of 2010

Dated: 19^th February, 2011

………In view of the aforesaid discussion I have no hesitation to say that it is very risky to assess the percentage of disablement only on the basis of the certificate of said doctor. In this situation this Court has no other alternative but to assess the medical papers of the victim in the light of Workmen Compensation Act. As per Ext. 6 patient was treated at outdoor of National Medical College and Hospital on 25.06.05 at about 7.00 p.m. i.e. after one day from the date of accident. After primary treatment he was released therefrom. Accordingly, I find that he was only treated in the said hospital on one occasion i.e. on 25.06.05. Considering the entire medical papers available in the record i.e. Ext. 6, Ext. 7, Ext. 8, I am of the opinion that as best it can be said that victim suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 20% (Twenty percent).

So the compensation comes to Rs.15,000 x 17 x20/100 = Rs.51,000/-.

Considering the entire medical papers available in the record I am of the further opinion that victim suffered aforesaid permanent partial disability due to grievous injury which he sustained in the aforesaid road accident.

Petitioner claimed medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-. He produced some vouchers regarding expenditure of treatment which have marked as Ext. 12 & 14 series.

On perusal of Ext. 12 victim incurred Rs.5843/- relating to his treatment. He paid Rs.2500/- as per Ext. 12/a. After deduction of the said amount he paid remaining amount of Rs.3343/- by Ext. 12/b. Accordingly I find that victim paid Rs.5843/- to health care and research center relating to his treatment for the period from 25.06.05 to 29.06.05 he also purchased some medicines by Ext. 14 series relating to his treatment in the aforesaid period. I also find that as per Ext. 14 series he incurred Rs.2389/-.

Petitioner is further entitled to Rs.5000/- as pain and sufferings beside the aforesaid compensation. So the total compensation comes to Rs.64232/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand two hundred thirty two).

Aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of