Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
ARINDAM LODH, J.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sri Bapi Debbarma S/o Sri Rabi Debbarma – Respondent
MAC. APP. No. 66 of 2016 with CO (FA) No. 05 of 2017
Decided On : 23-07-2018
For the Appellant : Ms. S. Deb (Gupta).
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Nandi, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that academic qualification cannot be the sole criteria to determine a person's earning capacity, especially for student claimants with disabilities.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation Assessment - Motor Vehicle Act, Section 168 - Medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, expenses during pendency of appeal - The court affirmed the compensation assessment by the tribunal and modified the award for pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of amenities, attendant charges, future medical expenses, and expenses during pendency of appeal, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 46,26,471.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to a claimant-student, aged about 22 years, who suffered 90% disability due to a motor vehicle accident. The court considered the nature of the injury, medical treatment, and the income assessment of the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the compensation assessment by the tribunal and modified the award for specific categories, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 46,26,471. The insurance company was directed to deposit the entire amount within two months, and the claimant was entitled to withdraw the interest amount from the fixed deposit as needed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tribunal correctly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000 per month, considering his academic qualifications and disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that academic qualification cannot be the sole criteria to determine a person's earning capacity and that there should be no discrimination in determining the loss of earning capacity due to disability, particularly for student claimants. The court also revisited and reconsidered various heads for which the claimant was not awarded just and adequate compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the related cross objection was allowed to the extent indicated, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 46,26,471. The insurance company was directed to deposit the entire amount within two months, and the claimant was entitled to withdraw the interest amount from the fixed deposit as needed.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) No. 305 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of claimant-student, aged about 22 years, who has been suffering from 90 % disability.
2. At the very outset of hearing Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the solitary ground which needs to be considered in this appeal is whether the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the ratio of all the decisions of the Apex Court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another, 2014 ACJ 1441 in the context of the present case.
Taking attention of this Court the learned counsel submits that in the case of Mekala (supra) the Apex Court has considered the brilliants of the injured victim while considering the multiplicand at Rs. 10,000/-.
3. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel submits that in the instant case the claimant had passed matriculation with 3rd division in the year 2012 and he was admitted to one diploma course. The crux of the submission of learned counsel is that the learned Tribunal ought not to have determined the amount of compensation considering the income of the claimant-victim at Rs. 10,000/- per month applying the principle of Mekala (supra). Her contention is that the student having passed matriculation with 3rd division cannot be compared with a student of brilliance like Mekala who stood first in class XI examination.
4. In the view of the submission of learned counsel, the question in this appeal to be determined is:
“Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/- which he could have earned had he not been shattered with the accident?”
There is no other issue involved in this appeal.
5. Having considered the undisputed fact of accident, it is necessary to consider the nature of injury the claimant has suffered on 17.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. TR.01-S-1517 (Tipper). After being faced with severe injury on his persons, the claimant was first brought to the GBP Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted as an indoor patient on and from 17.04.2014 to 19.04.2014. As his condition appeared to be precarious he was referred to SSKM hospital, Kolkata but due to non availability of the seat, claimant-petitioner was admitted in the National Neurosciences Centre, Kolkata on 19.04.2014 where he was treated up to 03.06.2014. Thereafter considering his condition, he was taken to the CMC Hospital, Vellore, where he was treated up to 16.09.2014. It is very clear case of the claimant that his treatment is still continuing in the OPD of GBP Hospital as well as under various private health clinics. Ultimately, the claimant has filed a claim petition of Rs. 1,72,16,000/- in all together.
6. A police case was also registered vide Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 14 of 2014 dated 03.05.2014 under Section 279/338 of IPC.
7. During the course of proceeding, the appellant- New India Insurance Company limited as well as the owner of the vehicle No. TR 01-S-1517 (Tipper) contested the suit by filing their respective written statements denying the claim of the claimant.
8. After perusal of the materials on record the learned Tribunal has held that the accident has been proved and it was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. TR 01-S-1517 (Tipper), the fact of which the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed in this appeal.
9. The issue No. 2 as framed by the learned counsel is:
“Whether the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for and if so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same?”
10. To decide the quantum of com
