The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimant may not be entitled to further enhancement of compensation if an earlier judgment has been passed with the consent of the parties, and the importance of informing the Court of related matters and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.3), West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 381 of 1997 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs.65,455/-in favour of the claimant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant-appellant filed an application for grant of Compensation under Section 166A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Section 163A of the said Act. The petitioner alleged that on 20.10.1996, he along with the son of his employer was travelling in Vehicle no. WB-02-7161. The vehicle was being driven at a high speed. When the vehicle reached near Bagma, it hit a tree on the side of the road. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to Udaipur Hospital from where he was referred to G.B. Hospital at Agartala. He remained under treatment at G.B. Hospital for 10 days and was thereafter referred to the S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata for better treatment. According to the appellant, he could not get any bed in SSKM hospital and, therefore, he got himself admitted in Avenue Nursing Home for 21 days.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal first decided the matter on 16.2.1999 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,73,600/-in favour of the petitioner-claimant and against the New India Assurance Company Limited along with interest @ 6% per annum.

4. The New India Assurance Company Limited challenged the award by filing a writ petition being CRP No. 32 of 1999 in the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court which then exercised jurisdiction over the State of Tripura. In that case the claimant was represented by Mr.A. Nandi, Advocate. The said case was disposed of on 31.10.2003 in the following terms:-

“9. In the result, this writ petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. However, in the interest of speedy payment of the awarded amount I call upon both the learned counsel of the parties to come into an amicable settlement of the case by way of reducing the amount of interest awarded by the Tribunal which has now become 20% per annum with effect from the date of claim petition in view of the fact that the compensation could not be paid within one month period stipulated in the award. I am happy to record that Mr. D.K. Biswas and also Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing on both sides agreed to my proposal of reducing the interest to be paid from 20% to 13% with the stipulation that the petitioner Insurance Company shall pay the entire amount along with the interest due as aforesaid within a period of 45(forty five) days.

10. In view of this agreement I hereby modify the impugned award as follows:-

(1) The petitioner Insurance Company shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,73,600/- minus Rs.50,000/- already paid by it along with interest @ 13% per annum from the date of claim petition within 45(forty five) days from today.

(2) Since a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner Insurance Company, the interest to be paid shall also be adjusted accordingly.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.”

5. It would be pertinent to mention that before this petition had been disposed of the present appellant had already filed MAC APP. No. 44 of 1999. In this case also Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate, was appearing for the claimant. In CRP No.32 of 1999 the Insurance Company was represented by Shri. D.K. Biswas, Advocate and by Sri. P. Gautam in the MAC APP. 44 of 1999. When the CRP was disposed of Sri Nandi did not inform the Court that he had also filed an appeal on behalf of the claimant. In case, he had done so, the Court would have ordered both the cases to be tried together. Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment passed in CRP which have been quoted herein above clearly indicate that after holding that the writ petition was not maintainable the learned Judge with the consent of the parties modif