Paikar Hemram @ Pata Kumar Hemram vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

P.K. Samanta, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th August, 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Asansol in M.A.C. Case No. 19 of 2004/146 of 2003.

The backdrop of the present case may be briefly stated as follows:

The present claimant/appellant filed the application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation. It was claimed in the said application that on 19th March, 2001 at about 18.45 hours, a bus being W.B. 37/4099 knocked the petitioner-appellant causing thereby severe injuries. The petitioner was admitted at the S.D. Hospital, Asansot where he was under treatment from 19th March, 2001 to 4th April, 2001. It was specifically claimed that such accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Over such accident case being Jamuria P.S. Case being No. 40 of 2001 dated 19th March, 2001 under Sections 279/338/427, I.P.C. was started. The petitioner as a result of such accident suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 30% in one of his eyes. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 before the learned Claims Tribunal.

The respondent-Insurance Company contested the case before the learned Tribunal denying inter alia all material allegations made by petitioner.

The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all the facts and materials as well as evidence on record passed an award of Rs. 30,000 only in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner/appellant a preferred the instant appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant-appellant could not establish his actual age, nor any satisfactory evidence could be placed before the learned Tribunal in support of his income.

It appears from the materials on record that the present appellant-petitioner examined himself (PW 1). It was categorically submitted in his evidence-in-chief that at the time of relevant accident, he was 36 years of age. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, we have no reason to brush aside such categorical assertion made on oath.

It is true that there is no evidence in support of the petitioner''s claim that he had income of Rs. 2,000 to 2,500 per month. The petitioner, of course, in his evidence-in-chief categorically stated that he used to work as a daily labour under contractor. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was not provided with work on all the days in a month. It was his statement in his cross-examination that he had income of Rs. 2,000 to 2,500 per month. The learned Tribunal while passing an award of Rs. 30,000 in favour of the present appellant did not assign any reason whatsoever. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the petitioner could not produce any proper evidence in support of his claim of age and income. But as pointed out earlier, the evidence in favour of the present appellant has no reason to be discarded, more so, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Thus, we can safely proceed on the basis of the reasonable assumption that the claimant had an income of about Rs. 2,000 per month.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner suffered 30% permanent disablement, his loss of income can be assessed as to the extent of Rs. 7,200 per annum. Having regard to the age of the appellant, we are inclined to use ''16'' as the multiplier and thus the total amount of loss suffered by the present appellant comes to about Rs. 7,200x 16 : 1,15,200. It cannot also be denied that the appellant as a result of such injury resulting in the loss of one of his eyes must have been suffering from mental pain and agony. True, this cannot be compensated in terms of money but in a way of recognition of the same, we are inclined to allow an amount of Rs. 9,800 as compensation for the mental suffering and agony. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,25,000 only. It may be pointed out that while assessing the compensation, it is not possible to proceed with mathematical precision and there can at best be an attempt to come to a rational figure. Having regard to all such facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be best served if the judgment and award dated 20th August, 2004 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated hereinbefore. The aforesaid amount may be paid to the appellant, of course, after deducting the amount already paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The said amount shall also carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual payment. Such payment may be made by issuance of Account Payee Cheque in favour of the appellant.

This appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.