Jaganath Mandal vs Divisional Manager And Ors.

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Bhatra as well asMs. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the

Respondent/Insurance Companies.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.09.2013 passed bythe MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 136/2011.

The claimant Juganath Mandal sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on05.11.2010, involving vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AK/8161

& AS-26/0379. The claimant/injured approached the MACT, Bongaigaon and the learned Tribunal by the impugned award, granted a compensation of

Rs. 18,292/- being medical expenses incurred by the claimant.

Unsatisfied with the above award, the claimant preferred the instant appeal, seekingenhancement.

Learned counsel Mr. S.C. Biswas, submits that the claimant sustained grievous injuryincluding fracture of frontal bone and had to undergo

treatment at Bongaigaon and Kochbihar incurring expenses of nearly Rs. 1,50,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal awarded only a paltry mount of

Rs. 18000/- for medical expenses, ignoring the evidence adduced by the clamant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that no amount was

granted by the learned Tribunal on account of pain, shock & suffering, though the claimant sustained grievous injury and had to be hospitalized for a

considerable time.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. R.K. Bhatra submits that the claimantsustained only simple injury on left foot and cut injury on

the skull and no reliable documentary evidence regarding treatment in the Malay’s Hospitals & Neuroscience Centre, Siliguri was adduced, and as

such, learned Tribunal rightly rejected the document, more particularly the Ext.33 being a bill issued from the said hospital in absence of any other

supporting document.

In support of the injury, the clamant produced Ext.8 being a injury report by doctor ofCommunity Health Centre, where the injured was initially

treated immediately after the accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying heavily on this exhibit-8 tried to impress upon this court,

that no grievous injury was caused to the claimant. The medical documents being Ext.8 & 9 would show that immediately after the accident, the

injured was admitted in Lower Assam Hospital and the discharge summery issued by the said hospital marked as Ext.9 demonstrated that the claimant

sustained fracture of frontal bone. Ext.32 being the discharge certificate issued from the Neuro Science Centre, Siliguri also reflected, that the

claimant sustained fracture of frontal bone with hemorrhage and contusion. From the cross examination of the witnesses revealed that credibility of

these documentary evidence could not be impeached. No doubt, the initial certificate issued from the community health centre, where the claimant

was taken immediately after the accident did not reflect the details of the injury. It is understandable, that in a rural dispensary of this nature, it may

not be possible to detect all the injuries, more particularly the injuries like fracture, which requires technical investigation. Immediately after attending

the community health centre, claimant was admitted in Lower Assam Hospital and the evidence of the claimant having been treated in Lower Assam

Hospital remained unshaken. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the claimant that he sustained grievous injuries

in absence of contrary evidence to impeach the credibility the documentary evidence adduced by the claimant.

It is the settled position, that in a proceeding before Tribunal under the Motor VehicleAct, one is not required to prove a fact by the standard of

proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Standard of proof in such proceeding cannot be higher than that of the preponderance of probability. The

documentary evidence adduced by the claimant with regard to treatment and medical expenses, more particularly, Ext.9, 10 & 32 demonstrated the

nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment rendered to him. All these documents clearly supported the Ext. 33, the bill issued by the

hospital and in view of the above evidence, I find no reason, why this documentary evidence, Ext.33, was discarded by the Tribunal. Apparently,

Ext.33 was supported by the Ext.32 discharge summary showing the injuries and treatment rendered to the claimant in Kochbihar hospital. While

criticizing the Ext.33, learned Tribunal failed to take note of the Ext.32. The documentary evidence, Ext. 32 & 33 transpires, that the claimant incurred

an expenditure of Rs. 73,910/- for his treatment in the Neuro Science Centre, Siliguri and claimant cannot be deprived of medical expenses, which is a

special damage. This apart, having considered the nature and gravity of the injuries as reflected in Ext. 32 & Ext.9, medical expenses documents

produced by the claimant cannot be held to be absurd or unreasonable.

Having regard to all the above documentary evidence adduced by the claimant, thiscourt is of the view that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 73,910/- in

addition to what was given by the Tribunal on account of medical expenses. Apparently, learned Tribunal did not award any amount on account of

pain, shock & suffering. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, for awarding

compensation in personal injury cases, tribunal ought to have awarded some amount on account of pain, shock and suffering having regard to the

nature and gravity of the injury. I am of the view that an amount Rs. 20,000/- towards pain & suffering would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the

award granted by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by an amount of Rs. 93,910/- being medical expenses of Rs. 73,910/- and non-pecuniary damages

of Rs. 20,000/in addition to what was granted by the learned Tribunal. The claimant shall also be entitled interest on the enhanced amount as fixed by

the learned Tribunal.

Thus the respondent Insurance Company shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 93,910/-with interest as fixed by the learned Tribunal by depositing

the same with the jurisdictional Tribunal within 6 weeks.

The appeal accordingly stands allowed.

Send back the LCR.