THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Prema Devi & Ors. - Respondents
MAC APP 01 of 2016
Decided On : 14-11-2016
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Section 173 - The judgment discusses the road traffic accident involving two motorcycles and the resulting injuries. It challenges the exorbitantly high award and the withholding of the injured from the Tribunal proceedings. The court analyzes the medical records, disability certificate, and testimonies to determine the extent of disability and the compensation. The court also addresses the plea of contributory negligence and the legal standing of the claimant. The final decision partially allows the appeal, quashing the penal interest but affirming the remaining award and payment terms.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a road traffic accident where the injured sustained grievous injuries, leading to permanent disability. The appellant challenges the high award and the withholding of the injured from the Tribunal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the accident resulted in the injured's quadriplegia and 100% disability, justifying the awarded compensation. It rejects the plea of contributory negligence and affirms the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award.
Issues: The issues include the believability of the road traffic accident, the extent of disability, the plea of contributory negligence, and the legal standing of the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relies on medical records, disability certificate, and testimonies to determine the extent of disability and the justification for the awarded compensation. It also emphasizes the lack of evidence for contributory negligence and affirms the legal standing of the claimant.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed partly, quashing the penal interest but affirming the remaining award and payment terms. The appellant is solely liable to satisfy the award within a specified period.
Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited as well as Mr. S. lodh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the remaining respondents.
2. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, urging that (i) the fact that the injured suffered the injury from the purported road traffic accident on 08.06.2012 involving the two motorcycles bearing registration no. TR-01-G-7697 (Hero Honda) and TR-01-K-7463 (Bajaj Discover DTS-I) is not probable; (ii) the award, as determined by the Tribunal is exorbitantly high, and (iii) withholding of the injured from the proceeding of the Tribunal has its consequential ramifications as to the disability. Hence, the judgment and award dated 25.07.2014 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 343 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court no.4, West Tripura, Agartala is under challenge in this appeal.
3. For appreciating those grounds, the essential facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noted. On 08.06.2011 when the son of the respondent no. 1, namely, Rakesh Roy was going to his office namely Samsung Service Centre at Battala by riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. TR-01-G-7697 through the by-lane of Chittaranjan Club, Shibnanagar and when he reached near Gedu Miah Mosque, at that time another motor cycle bearing registration no. TR-01-K-7463 (Bajaj Discover DTS-I) coming from the opposite direction in an extremely high speed collided with the bike of the said injured. As a result of the said accident, Rakesh Roy sustained grievous injuries over his head. He was immediately shifted to the GBP hospital and on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2011 he was referred to SSKM/AMRI hospital, Kolkata. He was treated at AMRI hospital, Kolkata from 10.06.2011 to 12.06.2011. After returning from Kolkata, the condition of the injured deteriorated and he had to be admitted at GBP hospital again on 18.06.2011 and on the date, as stated, he was referred to SSKM/AMRI hospital, Kolkata and he was treated at AMRI hospital from 19.06.2011 to 08.09.2011. As the respondent no. 1 was out of money, he had to get his son discharged from that hospital on his request on 08.09.2011. The injured sustained head injury and the respondent no. 1 was unable to continue the treatment of his son at AMRI hospital, Kolkata. The injured now is unable to move, write and speak and became almost abnormal and lying on the bed and he lost his working capacity. The injured is under treatment of the local physician Dr. Jayanta Das and a full time nurse has been engaged to look after the injured. The injured is under constant neuro-therapy treatment by Dr. DK Rana since September, 2011 till filing of the claim case. The injured was to earn Rs.6,000/- per month and he was to earn further Rs. 4,000/- per month from tution. Due to the accident, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 100% and as such, he claimed the compensation.
4. After recording the evidences, both oral and documentary, as led by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no. 3, the impugned judgment and award has been passed. From the claimant, the following documents have been admitted in the evidence:-
“the documents viz certified copy of FIR, ejahar, seizure lists (6 sheets), marked as Exbt.1. Certified copy of injury report (2 sheets), marked as Exbt.2, certified copy of charge sheet (5 sheets), marked as Exbt.3, original discharge certificate dated 19.6.2011, marked as Exbt.4, original referral certificate dated 18.6.2011, marked as Exbt.5, original discharge summary of AMRI hospital/advice on discharge (2 sheets), marked as Exbt.6, 81 nos. of cash memos for purchasing medicines and bill of Joy Ram Bhander, marked as Exbt.7, original prescriptions of AMRI hospitals (63 nos.), as Exbt.8, 161 nos. of cash memos of Frank Ross Pharmacy, Kolkata, marked as Exbt. 9, 2 nos of original cash memos of New Medical Supply
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.