SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Tri) 353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. VAIPHEI, J.
The Managing Director, Kolkata State Transport Corporation – Appellant
Vrs.
Shri Amit Kumar Paul, S/o Late Haridhan Paul – Respondent
MAC APP. No.112 along with C.O(F.A) No.31 OF 2013
Decided On : 14-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. T D Majumder, Advocate
For the Respondent-cross objector:Ms. M Roy, Advocate

The determination of compensation must be just and reasonable, proportionate to the damage, and based on a judicious approach.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation - Shyampukar PS Case No. 240 of 2011 U/s 279/304A/337/338/427 IPC - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle was the proximate cause of the vehicular accident. The Tribunal also assessed the medical treatment expenses and the loss of earning capacity of the respondent. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for fresh trial at the stage of examination of medical expert and other witnesses to substantiate the claimant's case with respect to the extent of his functional disability and the nature of his business and monthly income prior to the accident.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent sustained severe injuries in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a bus. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondent based on the evidence presented.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for fresh trial at the stage of examination of medical expert and other witnesses to substantiate the claimant's case with respect to the extent of his functional disability and the nature of his business and monthly income prior to the accident.

Issues: Assessment of compensation based on the extent of the respondent's injuries and loss of earning capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal must thoroughly examine the extent of the claimant's functional disability and the nature of his business and monthly income prior to the accident to determine just and proportionate compensation.

Final Decision: The case is remanded for fresh trial to substantiate the claimant's case with respect to the extent of his functional disability and the nature of his business and monthly income prior to the accident.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :


1. Both the appeal and cross-objection are directed against the judgment dated 20-6-2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No.91/2012 awarding compensation amounting to Rs.14,92,160/- together with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition in favour of the respondent/cross-objector.

2. Before proceeding, the facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and cross-objection may be briefly noticed. According to the respondent, on 20-7-2011 at about 5-30 P.M., while he along with his wife were waiting for a bus on a foot path at Shyambazar Bata stoppage, Kolkata, a vehicle bearing registration No. WB-04-E-0890 (C-21 Bus) suddenly appeared on the footpath, ran him down and severely crushed both his legs. He was immediately rushed to R.G. Kar Hospital, Kolkata, but as there was no seat available, he was then taken to Fortis Hospital, Kolkata on the same day and was treated there as an indoor patient from 24-7-2011 to 22-8-2011. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture of right femur, franture of right proximal tibia, fracture of left tibia shaft, multiple rib fracture on the right side, stable pelvic fracture and multiple abrasions of both legs. He also underwent major surgeries on his legs and some plates were fixed in the process. After discharge from Fortis Hospital, he returned to Agartala continued his treatment at TMC Hospital, Hapania, Agartala. On examination, the District Disability Medical Board, Agartala issued a certificate certifying that his disability was to the extent of 50% for a period of five years. According to the respondent, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Bus. A police case, i.e. Shyampukar PS Case No. 240 of 2011 U/s 279/304A/337/338/427 IPC was registered in connection with the accident. He subsequently filed the claim petition for awarding him a compensation of Rs.57,20,000/- for the disability caused to him in that accident.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant-Corporation, who filed its written statement by denying the material averments made in the claim petition. The principal stance taken by the appellant is that the respondent did not sustain any injury due to the accident involving Bus bearing registration No.WB-04-E-0890. The appellant admitted that some passengers sustained simple injuries due to the accident on that day but categorically asserted that no person including the respondent on the footpath sustained any injury in that accident. In the course of trial, the respondent examined himself as a witness and adduced some documentary evidence such as certified copies of the final report, the disablement certificate, the documents relating to his business, the documents relating to air tickets, treatment, bills, cash memos, etc. as Exbt.1 series. No evidence was however adduced by the appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the manner indicated earlier.

4. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the statement of the respondent in the examination-in-chief on affidavit and, therefore, until the contrary was proved, it should have to believe the evidence of the respondent. On the basis of the oral evidence, which was not shaken in the cross-examination, the contents of the FIR and the charge sheet submitted by the police, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle was the proximate cause of the vehicular accident, which would not have taken place had the driver been more cautious. Relying on the examination-in-chief of the respondent, which was not falsified in his cross-examination and the medical evidence and other materials on record, the Tribu






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top