SAMIM AKHTAR Vs. TAULIB ENTERPRISES
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.)This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment/award passed by the 14th M.A.C. Tribunal, Alipur, on 12.11.1998. The case of petitioner is that on 3.10.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. he was waiting in the bus stand near the crossing of A.I.C. Bose Road and Alimuddin Street. At that time a trailer bearing No. N 01-A 0794 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the petitioner. The said vehicle also dashed against two other taxies in the process. As a result of that, the victim sustained severe injuries on his person and he was immediately removed to N.R.S. Hospital where he was admitted and treated up to 3.12.1996, operation was done on the left leg of the petitioner and his right leg was completely plastered. The victim at the material time was working as a tailor in the tailoring shop styled as Alpha Tailors situated at 19A, Mirza Galib Street and he used to earn Rs. 500 to Rs. 550 per week. As a result of that he suffered permanent partial disablement. So the petitioner has claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000 against the opposite parties for the injuries sustained by him. The case was contested by the opposite party insurance company who has denied the claim of the petitioner on the material points.
(2.)The learned Tribunal considered the materials on record and thereafter he was of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove the accident and that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal was also of the opinion that the petitioner sustained partial permanent disablement to the extent of 30 per cent. He was also of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove that his monthly income was Rs. 2,000. As the petitioner was aged about 19/20 years, so the multiplier of 16 was taken and after necessary calculation the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the extent of Rs. 1,15,200 as compensation for the injury sustained by him. In addition to that learned Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner. Thus total amount of Rs. 1,20,200 was awarded in favour of the petitioner towards compensation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said finding of the learned Tribunal, petitioner has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal was not at all justified in holding that the petitioner sustained partial permanent disablement to the extent of 30 per cent whereas the doctor has opined that the petitioner sustained hundred per cent permanent disablement. That apart the award has been challenged on the ground that no compensation was awarded for the stay of the petitioner in the hospital and on other grounds. The appellant has further claimed that the amount towards pain and suffering should be more than that of the amount which has been awarded in favour of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal.
(3.)It is practically the admitted position that there was an accident caused by the offending vehicle and as a result of that the petitioner sustained severe injuries on his person. That the petitioner has suffered partial permanent disablement due to the accident has already been established, as the petitioner has been awarded interim compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000. So main thing that is now to be looked into is, whether the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the petitioner is just and reasonable. It has transpired from the evidence on record that the petitioner used to earn Rs. 500 to Rs. 550 per week. Naturally the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that petitioners income-at the relevant time was Rs. 2,000 per month. Consequently his annual income was rightly decided to be Rs. 24,000. Now the main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal was not at all justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner suffered 30 per cent disablement due to the injury sustained by him. According to the learned advocate, the doctor, who has been examined in this case as PW 2, has opined that the petitioner sustained 100 per cent disablement due to the injury. So the learned advocate argued that there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal to ignore the finding of the doctor and to come to an arbitrary conclusion that the petitioner sustained 30 per cent disablement for the injury. As such the learned advocate for the claimant argued that the learned Tribunal was not at all justified in awarding compensation only to the extent of Rs. 1,20,200 in favour of the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.