Point of Law: Motor Accident - Compensation modified - Injuries suffered by claimant, he should have been awarded more compensation for loss of future income particularly because claimant who was in confinement at hospitals and home for 03 months during treatment without any income required more time to regain full capacity of earning.

JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.1) Gomati Judicial District, Uadipur by award dated 20.06.2016 in T.S. (MAC) 04 of 2016, claimant Subrata Sarkar has filed the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(MV Act, for short) seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the said Tribunal.

[2] Essential facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

On 26.10.2014, claimant was going to Rajarbag from Matabari area of Udaipur on his motor bike bearing registration No.TR-03-D-6030. On the way at Canal Chowmuhani the offending vehicle (mini bus) bearing registration No.TR-03-1348 on its way from Agartala to Udaipur dashed against the motor bike of the claimant. As a result, claimant slipped from his bike and received multiple fracture and abrasion all over his body. He was immediately taken to the nearby hospital from where he was referred to AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala for better treatment. He was treated as an indoor patient in AGMC & GBP hospital from 26.10.2014 to 28.10.2014. After release from AGMC & GBP hospital claimant visited several hospitals including Yashoda Hospital at Sekendrabad, Rabindranath Tagore hospital in Kolkata and lastly he received treatment at the ILS Hospitals at Agartala.

[3] Immediately, after the accident, his cousin brother Sudip Mitra lodged a written FIR with the Officer in charge of the R.K.Pur Police station alleging that the accident occurred due to reckless driving of the offending vehicle. FIR of said Sudip Mitra was registered as R.K.Pur P.S. Case No.247 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 338, IPC and after investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet No.224 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014 against accused driver Naresh Das for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 427 IPC read with Section 144 of the MV Act.

[4] Claimant filed petition under Section 166, MV Act at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Owner of the offending vehicle, its driver and the insurer were impleaded as respondents in the said petition. The respondents appeared in the Tribunal and filed separate written objections against the claim of the petitioner. In their joint written statement filed by the driver and owner, driver denied the charge of rash and negligent driving and pleaded that accident occurred due to carelessness of the claimant who was on his motor bike. Owner denied his responsibility with regard to payment of compensation and pleaded that his vehicle was duly insured and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. The owner further pleaded that driver had a valid driving license and all documents of the vehicle including its registration, tax clearance certificate, pollution certificate, permit etc. were in order and the insurance policy was also current on the date of the occurrence. The insurance company pleaded that the liability of paying compensation would arise only when it was proved that there was a valid insurance policy on the date of occurrence.

[5] During trial, the Tribunal framed 3 issues. The first issue was whether the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving. The next issue was whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation and in case he was found entitled to compensation, who would pay such compensation. The 3rd issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to any other relief. Parties were asked to lead evidence. The claimant adduced his oral evidence and 15 documents [Exbt.1 to Exbt.15] in support of his claim. Claimant was cross examined on behalf of the respondents. But no separate evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

[6] The Tribunal examined the evidence of the claimant and after considering the submissions of the counsel of the parties awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,00/- to the claimant