Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) FMAT 1077 of 2013 This is an appeal of an insurance company from an award dated March 4, 2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 12th Court at Alipore, passed in M.A.C.C. No.184 of 2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for just compensation for the injury suffered by the victim, 1st respondent/cross objector (hereafter the victim, for short) resulting in loss of a limb. Though the victim had claimed a sum of Rs.35,42,500/- along with interest, the Tribunal was pleased to grant only Rs.12,00,517/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appearance of the insurance company in the proceedings before it, that is to say, December 2, 2004, on the basis of the amounts found to be payable. The insurance company contested the proceedings in the Tribunal on many grounds including an allegation that the accident was due to the negligence of the victim but could prove none of them. Hence the appeal by the insurance company, which challenged not only the quantum awarded, but also whether a part of the compensation awarded under the head 'reimbursement of medical expenses' amounted to grant of double benefit for the same accident. The cross-objection on the other hand is on the basis of quantum and also on count of interest the date from which it was awarded and the rate. During the course of hearing of the appeal, however, the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the law in respect of the amounts to be awarded as just compensation in cases of amputation were fairly placed by both the parties. Since these negated the grounds taken by the appellant, relating to the quantum and the factors on which it was awarded, the appellant addressed the Court only on the second point, that is to say, "double benefit". The said other grounds can be dealt with more profitably while dealing with the cross-objection, so perhaps it is best to proceed to the question of law, noting very briefly in passing the facts material to the decision of the appeal and the cross-objection.
(2.) I have gone through the records of the proceedings before the Tribunal, which were called for by the Court. The position established on evidence which was not questioned by the parties is that on May 24, 2004 the victim/cross appellant, aged about 49 years then, was standing at the road-side in front of 17, Alipore Road. A bus bearing No. WB25A/2637 (referred to hereinafter as the "offending vehicle") owned by the 2nd respondent, being driven at a high speed and without blowing its horn or giving any signal, knocked the victim down. As a result, the victim sustained multiple bleeding injuries and was shifted to the Calcutta Medical Research Institute for treatment where he was admitted as an emergency patient, and ultimately the said "accident" resulted in amputation of his right leg from the portion just above the knee which was certified by a board of doctors to have caused him permanent disability to the extent of 80%. He had to make alternative arrangement so that he could walk and perform his duties. This included fitting of a wooden leg which naturally would require maintenance and replacement. It is clear that this would also require that he has special arrangement for transportation to and from any destination since he was not in a position, after the accident, to travel to and from his destination by public vehicles, as he was wont to, before the accident. The offending vehicle was insured by the insurance company/appellant. The victim did not get compensation either from the owner or the insurance company in respect of the third-party risk that the offending vehicle and its owner had been insured against, and hence he applied for just compensation. The owner/2nd respondent did not contest the case. The appellant duly obtained leave from the Tribunal to contest the proceeding. There were only two facts which the appellant could establish on evidence, which included the income tax returns of the victim, his salary sheets, the records tendered in evidence and duly proved, the admission by the victim and the evidence of his employer, the DW-1: first, that the victim was still in service after the accident and amputation and that he was earning more, and gets more as salary but that was by way of increment; and second, that the victim had already received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- through his contractual Mediclaim policy. The appellant claimed that this ought to have been deducted from the amount granted under the heading "medical expenses" since otherwise, this would be double benefit for the same accident. Admittedly, the employer of the victim does not pay pension to its employees after superannuation. The story of negligence could not be proved, as I have referred to earlier, and of more moment is the fact that the Tribunal was categorically pleased to hold "The amount of money which has been received by the injured from Mediclaim will not be taken into consideration at the time of assessing the final amount of compensation."
(3.) On the above basis, the Tribunal was pleased to award the compensation of Rs.12,00,517 (Twelve lakhs five hundred and seventeen rupees) on the following counts: - 1. Pain and Suffering : Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Medical Expenses: : Rs.3,75,517/- (proved on evidence). 3. Expenses for travelling, to and from office and other places : Rs.2,75,000/- 4. Loss of expectation of life : RS.1,00,000/- 5. Future Medical expenses : Rs.1,00,000/- 6. Charge for attendant : Rs.50,000/- 7. Loss of Limb: : Rs.2,00,000/-;