1
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
DIBRUGARH.
M. A. C. Case No. 53/2012.
Sri Paban Kr. Bhuyan … Claimant.
- Versus -
1.Md. siddik Ali
2.Sri Gonesh Gogoi
3. M/SUnited India Insurance Company Ltd.
…. Opposite Parties.
Present : Mrs. R.K.Phukan,AJS,
Member of M.A.C.T.Dibrugarh.
Appearance :
For the claimant : Mr.K.K.Gogoi , Advocate.
For the opposite
Party No. 1and 2 : Ms. Meghali Das, Advocate.
For the opposite
Party 3 : Mr. G.G.Phukan, Advocate.
Date of argument : 05.04.2013
Date of judgment : 20.04.2013.
J U D G M E N T
The claimant Paban Kr. Bhuyan has preferred this claim petition for grant of compensation on account of injuries caused to his mother Rupeswari Bhuyan in a motor vehicle accident.
The case of the claimant is that on 03.05.2012at about 2 P.M. whilehis mother Rupeswari Bhuyan was walking at Mankatta Road near Nirmaligaon Tinialisuddenly TVS STAR CITY motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-06 F 8748 coming from the back side in rash and negligent manner hit Smti. Rupeswari Bhuyan and as a result of the accident she received multiple injuries on her body. Immediately she was shifted to Sankardev Hospital ,Dibrugarh wherein she was treated till 1.6.2012 and she was asked for regular check-up.Due to the accident she become permanently disabled and her treatment is still going on. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said motor cycle. Therefore, the claimant has filed this claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.
All the opposite parties have contested the case by filing written statement.
The answering opposite party No. 3United India Insurance Company Ltd. has admitted that at the time of the incident AS 06F 8748 was insured with the opposite party No. 3, but denied all other allegations. It is stated that the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- is too high . The answering opposite party No.3 has denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and prayed to absolve the opposite party No. 3 from the liabilities of payment of compensation.
The answering opposite party No. 1 and 2 who are owner and driver respectively of the vehicle No. AS-06 F-8748 have admitted about the accident but denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the answering opposite party No.2.It is stated that the motor cycle was driven by the opposite party No. 2 in normal speed but the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan suddenly came in front of the bike for which the accident occurred and Rupeswari Bhuyan sustained injuries and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the answering opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Upon the pleadings the following issues are framed-
- Whether Smti. Rupeswari Bhuyan sustained injury in the motor vehicle accident , that took place on 03.05.2012 involving vehicles No. AS-06/F-8748 due to rash and negligent driving or any other fault of the driver/owner of the offending vehicles no. AS-06/F-8748 ?
- Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for ?If so, what shall be the quantum of compensation and by whom among the opposite parties the compensation be paid ?
Claimant side has examined two witnesses. No witness is examined by the Defense side.
I have heard argument of the learned counsel for both the parties also perused the evidence on record and my decisions and reasons thereof are given as follows.
Issue No. 1
Injured Smti. Rupeswari Bhuyan appearing as a witness stated that on 03.05.2012 at about 2 P.M. while she was walking at Mankatta Road near Nirmaligaon Tiniali, suddenly a TVS STAR CITY motor cycle coming from the back side in rash and negligent manner hit her and as a result of the accident she sustained grievous injuries on her body. Immediately she was shifted Sankardev Hospital ,Dibrugarh wherein she was treated till 1.6.2012 and the doctor told her that another operation is required for removing the plate from her body. She has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said motor cycle. She has denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to her fault.
In this case it is not disputed that at the relevant time of the incident the motor cycle bearing registration No. AS 06F 8748 was driven by the answering Opposite Party No.2 Gonesh Gogoi. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 also admitted about the accident. But their plea is that the accident occurred due to the fault of the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan. But as deposed by the injured the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. The contesting opposite parties have failed to rebut the case of the claimant on the material aspect. No evidence is adduced by the defence side to substantiate their plea that the accident occurred due to the fault of the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan.
. From the evidence of the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan as discussed above, it is found that on the day of the incident at about 2 P.M. while she was walking at Mankatta Road near Nirmaligaon Tiniali suddenly the offending motor cycle bearing registration No. AS 06 F 8748 coming from the back side in rash and negligent manner hit her and as a result she sustained injuries which is also supported by bunch of medical documents so exhibited by claimant side . Ext.1 discharge certificate reveals that there was fracture of right tibia and compound fracture of right hummer.The accident information report Ext.2 reveals the authenticity of the accident and a case has been registered at Dibrugarh Police Station and under investigation. So, considering all above, it can be held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the motor cycle No. AS-06 F-8748 and Rupeswari Bhuyan sustained injuries as a result of the said accident.
Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative and in favour of the claimant.
Issue No.2
In view of my discussion above,the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan is entitled to get compensation. Now the question is what would be the just and reasonable amount of compensation.
Learned defence counsel has argued that there is no proof of income as such question of loss of income does not arise at all.
It was next contended that there is no any documents that her further treatment is required. The claim is excessive and the claimant is not entitled get the compensation as claimed.
Claiment Paban Kr. Bhuyan in his evidence exhibited the Discharge certificate as Ext.1,Form 54 as Ext. 2 cash memo as Ext.3 to 81 and the prescriptions as Ext.82 to 155. Out of the exhibited cash memos ext. 4 and 5 does not bear the signatures of any body. Nothing appears that the claimant had paid the said amount. Again, Ext. 9 to22, 25 ,26, 30 to 75 all are the credit memo.No sort document produced by the claimant that he borne the amounts mentioned in the said memos. From other exhibited documents it appears that the claimant has spent about an amount of Rs.1,39,118/say Rs.1,39,200/for the treatment of his mother Rupeswari Bhuyan. From the Ext. 1 appears that there was fracture of right tibia and compound fracture of right humorous. She was admitted in hospital on 3.5.2012 and discharge on 1.6.2012 . So, pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life is apparent. The claimant might have spent some miscellaneous expenses also during the course of the treatment of his mother. Considering all, following amount of compensation is calculated to be just and proper to be paid to the injured.
1. For medical expenses - Rs.1,39,200/-
2. For misc. expenses - Rs. 20,000./-
4. For pain and sufferings - Rs. 20,000/-
5. For loss of amenities of life - Rs. 20,000/-
------
Total Rs. 1,99,200/-
Thus the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan is entitled to get Rs. 1,99,200/ - as compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment.
From the Ext 2 accident information report (Form 54), it appears that at the time of the accident, the offending motor cycle was duly insured with the opposite party No.3. The contesting opposite party No.3 the United India Insurance
Company Ltd. in its written statement also admitted that at the relevant time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with them .As such the opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan.
This issue isanswered accordingly.
A W A R D
Awarded Rs.1,99,200./- (Rupeesone lakh ninety nine thousand two hundred) only in favour of the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan as compensation. The awarded amount shall carry interest thereon at the at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment. The opposite party No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is to pay the amount of compensation to the injured Rupeswari bhuyan by way of cheque.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 20th day of April, 2013.
(Mrs. R.K. Phukan )
Member of M.A.C.T.,Dibrugarh.
Dictated and
corrected by me.
(Mrs. R.K. Phukan )
Member of M.A.C.T.,Dibrugarh.
20.4.2013 Parties are present.
Judgment delivered in the open Court.
The claim case is allowed on contest and awarded Rs. 1,99,200/- in favour of the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan as compensation. The awarded amount shall carry interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment. The opposite party No. 3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is to pay the amount to the injured Rupeswari Bhuyan by way of cheque.
Judgment written in separate sheets kept with the record.
Member ,
M.A.C.Tribunal.
Dibrugarh.
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC) NO.2 : KAMRUP ::: GUWAHATI.
M. A. C. Case No. 935/04
Sri Binoy Deka ….. Claimant
- Vs. –
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. … Opposite Parties.
I S S U E S
- Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AS-14/3607 for which the claimant sustained injury in said accident ?
- Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, with what extent and against whom it recoverable ?
Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) No.2
Kamrup, Guwahati.