1 1 COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO. I KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI Present :- B J Mahanta Member, MACT-I Kamrup, Guwahati MAC Case No. 872 of 2012 Sri Anil Prasad Claimant Versus 1 M/s New India Assurance Co Ltd (Insurer of vehicle no. AS-01/T-6733) 2 Sri Krishna Kumar Das (Driver of above vehicle) 3 M/s Network Travels (Owner of above vehicle) Opp Parties Date of Argument : Date of Judgment : Advocate for the claimant : Mr S Sharma Advocate for OP No. 1 : Mr N Mazumdar Advocate for OP No. 2 : Self Advocate for OP No. 3 : Mr D Saha J U D G M E N T This MAC case arises out of a petition filed by claimant, Sri Anil Prasad, u/s 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation from OP No. 3, owner, & OP No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle (Night Super Bus) having registration no. AS-01/T-6733, and OP No. 1, insurer thereof, M/s New India Assurance Co Ltd, to the tune of Rs 7,83,000/- for causing him injury in an accident taking place on the National Highway 37 near Diring Chariali at about 2.30 AM of by the said vehicle. The case of the claimant in brief is that on the aforesaid date and at the aforesaid time when he was travelling from Guwahati side towards Duliajan side by the aforesaid offending vehicle and reached the aforesaid place of occurrence, the
2 2 aforesaid offending vehicle (Bus) being driven in very high speed and in negligent manner knocked one truck bearing registration no. AS-25/C-3291, causing him injury. Bokakhat PS registered a case vide PS Case no. 92/10 u/s 279/304-A/427 IPC regarding the accident. All the opposite parties contested the case by filing their written statements. The case of OP Nos. 3 & 2, owner & driver respectively of the offending vehicle, in brief is as under :- The allegations regarding the aforesaid accident taking place at the aforesaid place of occurrence on the aforesaid date & at the aforesaid time causing injuries to the claimant is admitted. However, all the other allegations made by the claimant in the claim-petition, including the allegation that the aforesaid offending vehicle was driven in rash & negligent manner at the relevant time causing the accident, are denied. The claimed amount is highly excessive and exaggerated. The offending vehicle was duly insured with OP No. 1, New India Assurance Co Ltd, and the driver had valid driving licence at the relevant time. So, if any liability to pay any compensation arises, the burden lies with OP No. 1, insurance company. The case of OP No. 1, insurance company, in brief is as under :- All the allegations made by the claimant in the claim-petition are denied and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof. The claimed amount is highly excessive and exaggerated. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- 1 Whether claimant, Anil Prasad, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated involving vehicle no. AS-01/T-6733 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle? 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount is payable?
3 3 In support of its case, the claimant has examined himself as PW-1 and produced a number of documents. The contesting opposite party did not adduce any evidence in support of its case. Arguments of both the sides heard. Both the sides have also submitted written arguments. I have carefully perused the entire materials brought on record, heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and decided the issues as under :- ISSUE NO. 1 According to claimant, PW-1, on the aforesaid date and at the aforesaid time when he was traveling from Guwahati towards Namrup by the aforesaid offending vehicle (bus) and reached the aforesaid place of occurrence, the aforesaid offending vehicle being driven in rash and in negligent manner knocked one truck, causing injuries to his person. Bokakhat PS registered a case vide PS Case No. 92/10 u/s 279/304-A/427 IPC against the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle. He firmly says that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle. Nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination of claimant, PW-1, to raise any doubt regarding the veracity of his above claims on the issue. The contesting OP has not adduced any contrary evidence on the issue. Ex-4, Form No. 54, supports his claim that the aforesaid accident, involving the aforesaid offending vehicle, took place at the aforesaid place of occurrence at the aforesaid time of the aforesaid date, causing him injury and that Bokakhat PS registered a case vide PS Case no. 92/10 u/s 279/304-A/427 IPC against the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle regarding the accident. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, it is found and held that issue no. 1 is decided in the affirmative. ISSUE NO. 2 In view of the decision arrived at in respect of issue no. 1, it is found and held
4 4 that the claimant is certainly entitled to receive compensation in this case. In determining the quantum of compensation the claimant is entitled to receive, let us first find out the nature and the extent of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, the nature and the extent of the treatment received by him for such injuries and the extent of the expenditures incurred by him for such treatment. Regarding the nature and the extent of the injury sustained by the claimant in the accident and the nature and the extent of the treatment received by him for such injury, according to claimant, PW-1, he sustained grievous injury on his head and joint of his left leg knee was fractured in the accident. He was immediately admitted at Bokakhat PHC and thereafter he took treatment at Marowary Hospital & Research Centre, Guwahati. He got further treatment at Gaurab Orthopaedic Clinic at Patna. He proves Ex-3 to Ex-39 as medical documents, x-ray report and MRI etc in support of his claim. Ex-3 shows that he was taken to Bokakhat PHC on the same day after the accident. It further shows that he received cut injury on his left knee posteriorly and he was unable to move his left leg. He was referred to GMCH. Ex-8 shows that he went to Marwary Hospital & Research Centre on the same day and consulted Dr Lalit Kumar Shah. It further shows that he was advised MRI of his left knee. Ex-37, MRI of his left knee, shows that he suffered injuries to his medial collateral ligament with disruption, and his iliotibial band. There was tear in the posterior horn of lateral meniscus. Patchy marrow edema was noted in the lateral femoral and tibial condyles. There was effusion in the suprapatellar bursa. Ex-21 and Ex-22 shows that he consulted Dr K Baidya of Gaurav Orthopedic Clinic on & respectively. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, it is found and held that the claimant sustained ligament injury in the accident.
5 5 Regarding the extent of the expenditures incurred by him for his treatment, he says that he spent Rs 1,80,000/- for his treatment. He has not specifically exhibited any documents as cash-memos and vouchers. However, on perusal of the aforesaid medical documents submitted by him, it is found that he spent about Rs 19,000/- for treatment of his injuries inasmuch as some of the said documents are not found to be reliably connected with the accident of this cases. With regard to his income, according to claimant, PW-1, he was a mechanic by profession and he was doing mechanical works of different parties at different places at the relevant time but due to the accident he has become permanently disabled to the extent of 50% and he cannot walk and bend properly which has caused him loss. He has submitted Ex-40, disability certificate, in support of his claim regarding his disability However, no document regarding his occupation and income has been submitted in the case. Also Ex-40, disability certificate, hasn t been properly proved by examining the issuing authority. On the other hand, there is nothing in the evidence on record to show that he was hospitalized for any length of time after the accident. In view of the above, it is found & held that he is not entitled to receive any amount for loss of income. Considering the nature and the extent of the injury sustained by him, it is held that he is entitled to receive a lump-sum amount of Rs 25,000/- as compensation. As per the claim-petition, the offending vehicle was insured with OP No. 1, insurance company, at the relevant time. Ex-1, Form No. 54, supports that fact. Hence, it is held that OP No. 1, M/s New India Assurance Co Ltd, is liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant as compensation in this case. O R D E R The claim-petition is allowed. The claimant is awarded Rs 25,000/- (Rupees
6 6 twenty-five thousand) only in the lump sum with 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e , till payment as compensation to be paid by OP No. 1, insurance company. OP No. 1, M/s New India Assurance Co Ltd, is directed to pay the award-amount within one month from the date of this order. Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this the 16 th day of March (B J Mahanta) Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati