Compensation in motor vehicle accident claims assessed on preponderance of probability; strict proof and police investigation not necessary for entitlement.

JUDGMENT

By means of filing this appeal under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) with 9% annual interest to Smti Sudipa Das (respondent No.1 herein) for the injury and loss suffered by her in a road traffic accident which occurred on 19.08.2014 at Agartala. Said compensation was awarded by the Tribunal under the following heads:

Sl.No.

Heads

Amount

1.

For cost of treatment

Rs. 5,00,000/-

2.

For transportation Charges

Rs. 1,00,000/-

3.

For pain and suffering

Rs. 2,00,000/-

4.

For mental shock and agony

Rs. 2,00,000/-

Total :

Rs.10,00,000/-

Tribunal also awarded 9% annual interest on the said amount from the date of presentation of claim petition before the Tribunal till disbursement of compensation.

[2] Appeal has been filed by the insurance company mainly on the following grounds:

(i) Tribunal did not take care of the settled principles for determination of compensation payable to claimant respondent No.1.

(ii) Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence particularly cross examination of the claimant and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding with regard to the liability of the appellant insurance company.

(iii) The Tribunal erroneously allowed the claim only on the basis of a G.D Entry.

(iv) No FIR was lodged after the accident and no police investigation was done. Tribunal’s award is thus grossly erroneous and liable to be set aside.

(v) The Tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimant respondent was a pillion rider on the motor bike of his brother and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said motor bike. It being a case of contributory negligence owner of the motor bike is liable to pay compensation.

(vi) Tribunal did not scrutinize the medical reports, bills and prescriptions while granting an exorbitant amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost of treatment of the claimant and the Tribunal did not also consider the fact that some of those bills related to treatment prior to the accident.

[3] Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company and also heard Mr. Alik Das, learned advocate appearing for the claimant respondent. Counsel have made detailed submissions with regard to their respective claims.

[4] The bare facts which are essential to appreciate the challenge are as under:

Claimant, Ms. Sudipa Das was going to Tripura University at Surjya Mani Nagar from her home at Jagaharimura on 19/08/2014, morning on a Bajaj Pulser motorbike bearing registration No.TR-01-J- 9364 driven by her brother. The bike was being driven by her brother rashly and negligently. As a result, when a street dog appeared in front of the bike, his brother could not control the speeding bike and as a result, both of them slipped from the bike and the claimant received fatal head injuries whereas her brother was saved who received some minor injuries. They were rescued and brought to IGM Hospital at Agartala by the local people. From there, the claimant was taken to AGMC and G.B.P Hospital. She was then brought to ILS Hospital on the same day. From ILS Hospital she was taken to a super speciality hospital in Kolkata where she received treatment as an indoor patient from 20.08.2014 to 13.09.2014. She had undergone a brain surgery in the said hospital at Kolkata. Two months after her discharge from the said hospital, she again fell ill and got admitted in the hospital on 23.11.2014. She was discharged on 27.11.2014. As a result of the accident, she developed speech