AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Deepak Gupta, C.J. (Oral)—This appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimant is directed against the award dated 06-01-2007 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 299 of 2001 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant out of which Rs.10,000/- was awarded for medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- as special damages.
This case was earlier decided on 10.02.2014 and I had passed an award in favour of deceased Madhusudan Saha. However, it was brought to my notice at a later stage that Madhusudan Saha had expired on 26.06.2010 and therefore, this judgment was recorded and the matter has been reheard. The appeal is now prosecuted by the legal heirs of Madhusudan Saha. The law is well settled that the legal heirs can only get the actual monetary loss and their claim has to be restricted to actual monetary loss, which may have been sustained.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 12-03-2000. According to him, he went to the hospital at Agartala where he received treatment up to 14-03-2000. Being dissatisfied with the treatment, he flew to Kolkata on 14th March itself and got himself treated at Dreamland Nursing Home, Kolkata where he remained admitted from 14-03-2000 till 21-03-2000. As per the discharge certificate, the claimant was suffering from facio maxillary injury. Thus, it stands proved that the claimant received treatment both in Agartala and Kolkata. The learned Tribunal disallowed the expenses for the treatment at Kolkata only on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that he had been referred for treatment to Kolkata.
In my view, the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. It is for the injured person to decide where he wants to get treatment and the tortfeasor cannot force the claimant to get himself treated at the cheapest place even if the medical facilities be below average. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that even today in most cases, people prefer to go to Kolkata or Guwahati or even Chennai and Vellore to get treatment, rather than getting themselves treated at Agartala. Merely because there is no reference to send the claimant outside Agartala is no ground to deny him damages. In certain cases, where the expenses on medical claim are extremely high or not justifiable, then the Tribunal may lower them reasonably because if an injured person decides to get treatment in a five star hospital and stays in a VIP room costing Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- a day, then the Tribunal may hold that such expenses are not justified. In the present case, including the transportation charges and medical treatment, the total amount proved is Rs.29,344/-. This, in my opinion, is a very reasonable amount and clearly indicates that the claimant has not submit any false claim. There may be certain other amounts for which the claimant may not have kept receipts etc. and, therefore, award him Rs.40,000/- for medical treatment including medical expenses, transportation expenses, diet charges and in this case, attendant charges etc.
No amount can be awarded for pain and suffering because that was a loss pursuant to the deceased and the legal heirs cannot get that amount.
As far as loss of income is concerned, the claimant could not have worked for at least one month because of the injury to his jaw. I am unable to accept the claim of the claimant that he could not work for two years. The injury is only to the jaw and will not affect the working capacity of the claimant who is working as a businessman. Therefore, he may have not attended his business at the most for one month and compensation of Rs.5,000/- under this head is just and reasonable.
Therefore, the total compensation works out to (Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 5,000) =Rs. 45,000/-.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- i.e. Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand). The Insurance Company has already deposited the amount in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2014. Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel may file his fresh calculations with regard to the amount which should have been deposited on that date as per this judgment. This shall be filed before the Registrar Judicial, who shall then after refunding the excess amount to the insurance company release the amount in equal shares to all the legal heirs of Madhusudan Saha by remitting it to their separate Bank accounts details whereof along with photocopy of the first page of the passbook be submit in the Registry of this Court within 2(two) weeks from today. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount(s), if any, which it has already paid or deposited.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
Send down the lower court records forthwith.