Point of Law: Accident claim – Permanent disability and loss of earning capacity - submission of his counsel that his earning capacity has been totally reduced to 100% is not acceptable. 60% reduction in his earning capacity on account of permanent disability certified by the District Disability Medical Board is therefore accepted and on that basis, the computation of his future loss of income.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by MACT (Court No.4), West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) 98 of 2014 and the method used for awarding the compensation, aggrieved appellant has filed the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act for short) for enhancement of compensation.

2. The factual background of the case is as under: On 17.11.2013 at about 5 O’clock in the evening appellant Gobinda Debbarma was going to a grazing field called Dhanmura in his village from his home to bring back his cow from the grazing field. On the way, the offending vehicle carrying registration No. TR-01-W-1539 (Tripper Truck) hit him. As a result, he sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident said Gobinda Debbarma was shifted to AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala in a very critical condition. His brother Rabipada Debbarma reported the matter to police by lodging a written FIR at Melagarh police station on 22.11.2013. The informant alleged in his FIR that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.

3. Based on the FIR, Melagarh PS case No. MLG 147 of 2013 under sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet No. 18 of 2014 dated 26.04.2014 under sections 279 & 338 IPC against the driver of the vehicle namely Babul Das, Son of Tapan Das of Jatrapur, Sepahijala judicial district.

4. Alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, said Gobinda Debbarma being the petitioner filed a petition in the motor accidents claim tribunal (Court No.4) at Agartala claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on the ground that owing to the accident he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity.

5. Owner of the vehicle and its insurer were made parties as respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. By filing written objection, respondent owner of the offending vehicle claimed that his vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2) and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. He also claimed in his written statement that Babul Das was the driver of his vehicle and on the date of accident he had a valid driving licence. According to the owner, liability to pay compensation lied with the insurer.

6. The insurance company (respondent No.2) by filing written statement contended that the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation unless a valid insurance policy is produced and its currency is proved by the owner of the vehicle. It was also pleaded by the insurance company that amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the injuries sustained by him.

7. In the course of trial of the case, claimant petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Dipti Bikas Roy, a locomotive specialist as PW-2. He also relied on various documents including the disability certificate (Exbt.7) issued by the District Disability Medical Board, West Tripura, Agartala. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

8. In his examination in chief, petitioner Gobinda Debbarma claimed that as a labourer he used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. As a result of the disability suffered by him from the said accident, he lost his earning capacity. The accident made him unable even to pursue his domestic works. He stated that he appeared before District Disability Medical Board for assessment of his disability and the board certified that he suffered from 60% permanent disability. The claimant produced the said disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board which was admitted into evidence as Exbt.7. The claimant was cross examined by the owner as well as by the insurance company. It was suggested to the claimant on behalf of the insurance company that he was not entitled to any compensation. It was also suggested to him that his claim was excessive. The claimant denied both th