Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 455
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Anil Chanda - Appellant
Versus
Fanil Chandra Goon - Respondent-Opposite Parties
MAC APP. NO. 44, 45, 46 OF 2010
Decided on : 02.07.2015
Mr. S.B. Debnath, Advocate.
Mr. K. Bhattacharji, Advocate,
Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate.
The failure to produce the insurance policy and contest the claim can lead to the owner being held liable for compensation in a motor accident case.
Headnote:
Labourers - Motor Accident Compensation - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a)] - [Summary: The court awarded compensation to claimants injured in a truck accident. The owner denied employing the claimants, but failed to produce insurance policy. The court held the owner liable and enhanced compensation in each case.]
Fact of the Case:
Three claimants were injured in a truck accident and filed claim petitions for compensation. The owner denied employing them and failed to produce the insurance policy. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the owner liable and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the owner liable for compensation due to failure to produce the insurance policy and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Dispute over claimants' employment status, liability of the owner, and adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The owner's failure to produce the insurance policy and contest the claim led to the court holding the owner liable for compensation. The court also enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, modified the awards, and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest.
All these three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since the issues involved are virtually identical.
2. All the three claimants were travelling in truck No.TR-01-C-1652 which was going from Gandacherra to Ambassa. This truck went off the road and fell into a lunga (ditch) and the claimants suffered injuries. All the claimants filed claim petitions claiming that they were engaged as labourers on the truck in question and, therefore, claimed compensation.
3. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement in each of the three cases denied the fact that the claimants were labourers and stated that he had not engaged any labourer. However, during the course of the trial, the owner did not appear at all. Awards were passed in favour of the claimants and in all these awards the owner was held liable to pay the compensation because the owner had not even produced the insurance policy before the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the claimants filed appeals in this Court which are being decided by this judgment. In the mean time, the owner filed review petitions before the learned Tribunal and along with the review petitions filed the policies of insurance. It appears that notice of the review petition was served upon the Insurance Company which did not put in appearance and without any further discussion the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not challenged the order passed in review.
Now I proceed to decide the quantum in each of the three cases.
In MAC APP.44 of 2010:
4. In this case, the injured Sri Anil Chanda suffered fracture of both bones of the forearm. He was admitted in hospital for 33 days and thereafter was treated as an outdoor patient. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,600/- for attendant charges for 33 days. In my view, a patient would require at least two attendants and the cost of each attendant would be Rs.200/- per day and the cost of two attendants for 33 days would be Rs.13,200/-.
5. As far as the medical expenses are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,100/- but the claimant may have spent some more amount on medical treatment for which receipts may not have been kept and, therefore, he is awarded Rs.15,000/- under this head.
6. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.100/- per day and has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income for five months. This, according to me, is reasonable and calls for no interference.
7. The claimant has been awarded total sum of Rs.5,000/- each, i.e. Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and compensation on mental shock and agony. In my view, this is very much on the lower side. The claimant remained in hospital for 33 days and after that he remained as an outdoor patient for a number of days. Therefore, he is awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering etc.
Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. (13,200 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 20,000) = Rs.63,200/- (rupees sixty three thousand two hundred).
In MAC APP.45 of 2010:
8. In this case, the injured Sri Samarjit Chakma suffered fracture of both bones of the left leg. He was admitted in hospital for 35 days and thereafter was treated as an outdoor patient. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- for attendant charges for 35 days. In my view, a patient would require at least two attendants and the cost of each attendant would be Rs.200/- per day and the cost of two attendants for 35 days would be Rs.14,000/-.
9. As far as the medical expenses are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,000/- but the claimant may have spent some more amount on medical treatment for which receipts may not have been kept and, therefore, he is awarded Rs.16,000/- under this head.
10. The claimant has been awarded Rs.4,500/- for attending the OPD on 9(nine) occasions and this award is reasonable.
11. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.100/- per day and has awarded Rs.18,000/
