The court emphasized the necessity of assessing compensation based on the impact of permanent disabilities on earning capacity, reinforcing equitable principles for determining just compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the original claimant challenging the award dtd. 7/4/2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) 47 of 2017.

2. The factual background of the case is as under:

The appellant had gone to the house of Ratan Ch. Das (respondent No.1) for painting work on 12/10/2016. At about 2.30 'O' clock in the afternoon, the appellant requested said Ratan Ch. Das to drop him at his home at Hatipara, Agartala on his motor bike. Pursuant to the request of the appellant, said Ratan Ch. Das took the appellant on his motor bike and left for the home of the appellant. Just before reaching home, appellant slipped from the motor bike and received fatal injuries. The injured appellant was immediately taken to A.G.M.C and G.B.P Hospital at Agartala from where he was referred to Peerless Hospital in Kolkata on 13/10/2016. He received treatment in Peerless Hospital as an indoor patient from 13/10/2016 to 28/10/2016. After his discharge from the said hospital, he received follow up treatment in various hospitals within and outside the State. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Sec. 166 M.V. Act in the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.14,44,000.00 from the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending motor bike.

3. The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) appeared and filed written reply to contest the case. In his written reply he admitted the accident. He, however, denied his negligence and claimed that there was fault in the road on which they were travelling. According to the said respondent, on a particular place of the road few bricks had come off which escaped his notice, as a result he fell with his motor bike at the place and the claimant appellant who was a pillion rider on his motor bike also slipped from the vehicle and received injuries. The respondent claimed that his vehicle was insured for 3rd party risk and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation.

4. The insurance company (respondent No.2) also contested the case by filing separate written reply wherein they claimed that insurance company could be saddled with the liability to pay compensation only if a valid insurance policy was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle and it was proved that his driving licence and other documents of his vehicle were in operation.

5. The claimant as well as the opponents led evidence at the Tribunal to prove their respective cases and the Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciating evidence led by them disbelieved the case of the claimant and by an award dtd. 7/3/2019 and dismissed the claim petition observing as under:

"8. As the claimant petitioner Sri Rakesh Debnath has failed to establish the fact that he had sustained bodily injury out of the alleged road traffic accident, obviously the claimant petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation under Sec. 166 of the MV Act. Hence, Issue No. 2 also hereby decided in negative and against the claimant petitioner."

6. The claimant-appellant has challenged the judgment of the tribunal in MAC Appeal No.37 of 2019 before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2020 in MAC Appeal No.37 of 2019 whereby the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal with a following directions:

"[11] In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with following directions:

(i) The award of the Claims Tribunal dtd. 7/3/2019 is set aside.

(ii) It is held that the claimant received bodily injuries in an accident which took place on 12/10/2016 when he was travelling on the motorcycl